Fast forward to January 2006 and todays NHL offer will seem generous

[NJD Jester]

Really.. so you would spend 80 - 200 bucks to watch my 11 year old son play hockey then? Face it, the players aren't line workers at GM (no disrespect to line workers at GM) that can be replaced. You aren't paying an exorbitant amount of money to watch the game, you are paying to watch the game be played at a very high level. The players are the product.

Funny, I never hear this argument when we're talking about the Miracle on Ice.

 

[CarlRacki]

Find it amazing that the economic PhDs on this thread are absolutely, positively certain that the players "MUST!" accept the owner's offer "RIGHT NOW!"...or else they are "DOOMED!"

These same folks apparently double as psychics, too. As in: laying out the scenario that will unfold over the next 6, 12, 24 months.

Very instructive for this reader and I'm sure we are all grateful for this insight, these "facts". Who needs to follow the negotiations? We already know who is "WRONG!" and how it will turn out, thanks to these highly-confident clairvoyants.

Of course, one saw the same declarations back in September-December, with predictions that the players would cave in/be doomed by January. But never mind....

Most fascinating is that "THE IDIOT!" Bob Goodenow and the "GREEDY!" union members whom he represents have not dialed into the sage advice of HF's self-assured economic geniuses/fortune tellers.

I mean, it's sooooo plain for all to see, isn't it?

Amen. What this board really needs are more interesting, educational and well-thought posts like yours that truly advance the debate.

 

[417]

Absent a divided ownership, such as baseball has, what leverage does the NHLPA have at all? The owners can outlast the players, can even afford to lose two years? That is half the average players' career. How much howling will you here from the players' side if this goes into next year? Do you genuinely believe that much pressure is on the owners who if they stick can recoup that money and then some in subsequent years? Owners who make their real money elsewhere?

Get real.

Bang on my friend, forget how much $$ the players will lose, what about the years on their careers they're going to lose, the damage they'll be doing to the younger generation, if they don't accept the offer, you'll see how many players will cross the picket line, maybe, maybe a guy like Bobby Holik, or Bill Guering could survive a 1 year lockout, but tell that to the average player who dosen't make that type of money...

When will the players and pro-players fans realize that PLAYERS HAVE NO LEVERAGE, dosen't matter if the owners are right or wrong, or if it's their fault or not, yes that's unfortunate, but that's why players are players, and owners are owners, just be happy your making that much $$ in the 1st place...

P.S. still waiting to see what so horrible about a cap, can anyone answer this question?

 

[417]

Find it amazing that the economic PhDs on this thread are absolutely, positively certain that the players "MUST!" accept the owner's offer "RIGHT NOW!"...or else they are "DOOMED!"

These same folks apparently double as psychics, too. As in: laying out the scenario that will unfold over the next 6, 12, 24 months.

Very instructive for this reader and I'm sure we are all grateful for this insight, these "facts". Who needs to follow the negotiations? We already know who is "WRONG!" and how it will turn out, thanks to these highly-confident clairvoyants.

Of course, one saw the same declarations back in September-December, with predictions that the players would cave in/be doomed by January. But never mind....

Most fascinating is that "THE IDIOT!" Bob Goodenow and the "GREEDY!" union members whom he represents have not dialed into the sage advice of HF's self-assured economic geniuses/fortune tellers.

I mean, it's sooooo plain for all to see, isn't it?

And with all due respect Trottier, as I appreciate the input you've brought forth from a PA standpoint, but even you can appreciate that you don't need a PhD to realize that the whole point of this lockout is money which the owners have more of, and continue to rake in with other business ventures, if this battle stretches on for 1year or 2 years, who do you see being more desperate in the end?

 

[Cully9]

Really.. so you would spend 80 - 200 bucks to watch my 11 year old son play hockey then? Face it, the players aren't line workers at GM (no disrespect to line workers at GM) that can be replaced. You aren't paying an exorbitant amount of money to watch the game, you are paying to watch the game be played at a very high level. The players are the product.

Don't discount the value of branding, and that's what the NHL owners have in their investment. People care far more about what the Maple Leafs are doing than what the players on the Leafs are doing wherever they are now. As such, the players can't make anything close to NHL money anywhere else, and they find that when they try their own little ventures (eg. OSHL) they can't draw flies. There's a whole game experience that people expect, and it includes high level hockey, but that's not the one and only thing. They also expect a league infrastructure (standings, rules, officiating etc.) that doesn't come from players.

 

[Trottier]

Amen. What this board really needs are more interesting, educational and well-thought posts like yours that truly advance the debate.

And now you know why I am pro-abortion and pro-war.

 

[Trottier]

And with all due respect Trottier, as I appreciate the input you've brought forth from a PA standpoint, but even you can appreciate that you don't need a PhD to realize that the whole point of this lockout is money which the owners have more of, and continue to rake in with other business ventures, if this battle stretches on for 1year or 2 years, who do you see being more desperate in the end?

417, I respect your POV too. And the predictions of the players ultimately "giving in" (whatever that means) may, in fact, be 100% correct. But anyone who has followed collective bargaining agreements whatsoever - in sports or otherwise - knows that they are unpredictable.

My post was sincere. I am amused/amazed that anyone claims to know with certainty the outcome. Or what is "best" for the players to accept, based on media reports/rumors. And, clearly, as evidenced by this thread, some folks think they do know, assuredly.

My take: these negotiations are like a legal trial. Unless you are in the room, it's all conjecture, speculation.

One understandably may have had it up to here with the NHLPA at this point. But that does not equate to them being fools for not accepting an offer.

 

[GKJ]

Funny, I never hear this argument when we're talking about the Miracle on Ice.

This isn't the Miracle on Ice. Those guys didn't get paid.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

417, I respect your POV too. And the predictions of the players ultimately "giving in" (whatever that means) may, in fact, be 100% correct. But anyone who has followed collective bargaining agreements whatsoever - in sports or otherwise - knows that they are unpredictable.

My post was sincere. I am amused/amazed that anyone claims to know with certainty the outcome. Or what is "best" for the players to accept, based on media reports/rumors. And, clearly, as evidenced by this thread, some folks think they do know, assuredly.

My take: these negotiations are like a legal trial. Unless you are in the room, it's all conjecture, speculation.

Agreed, you can not predict the future. But you can know who holds the better hand. That is all that I am saying (being one of those who you are I think referring to). The players hold a relatively lousy hand. The Owners hold all of the aces. I compared it to baseball which is the opposite situation, the owners ALWAYS divide and cave giving the players all of the cards. If there is a strike in baseball in 2006, and no changes to that divided ownership like hockey did this time around, the results are predictable as well, against the owners in that case.

How hard is that to follow?

 

[417]

417, I respect your POV too. And the predictions that the players ultimately giving in may in fact be 100% correct. But anyone who has followed collective bargaining agreements whatsoever - in sports or otherwise - knows that they are unpredictable.

My post was sincere. I am amused/amazed that anyone claims to know with certainty the outcome. Or what is "best" for the players to accept, based on media reports/rumors. And, clearly, as evidenced by this thread, some folks think they do know, assuredly.

My take: these negotiations are like a legal trial. Unless you are in the room, it's all conjecture, speculation.

Can't say I argue with that Trottier, all we know for sure, is it's going to be an interesting couple of days coming up...

I remember reading somewhere that right now, it's like groundhog day for fans, and it's so true, everyday, I spend about 3/4 of my day at work reading, writing and arguing with posters over what happening, what's going to happen and what may have already happened, i'm pooped!

 

[NJD Jester]

This isn't the Miracle on Ice. Those guys didn't get paid.

OK, so using your argument, paying a player makes him a professional, right? So then replacement players -- be they from the ECHL, UHL or some other minor league -- will be professional players if they're paid by the NHL. Works for me.

I love how all of these pro-player people talk so much smack about the quality of play in the NHL if the league goes for replacement players. Are you the same folks who are constantly praising the virtues of minor league and junior World Cup hockey in contrast to the big, lumbering NHL? Or do purists step off the pulpit when they become Bob Goodenow apologists?

 

[Slats432]

The reputation of the NHL is already piss poor, the only thing that makes it worse is your beloved NHLPA leader stepping to the podium and announcing that the players should put up their middle finger and go play in Europe. Any momentum the NHL has in gaining most of these southern markets has been obliterrated. This is the work of Bob Goodenow. Maybe if the players didn't drive salaries through the roof, the game could be promoted properly with some finances thrown into marketing, the casual fan would pay attention more. When the playoffs were on the NHL had a lousy marketing scheme for it (actually they has no marketing scheme and of course since the players suck all the money out of the system, they couldn't actually afford to invest in one). Commercials on ESPN had boring workers at a plant which was a boring commerical which is ESPN's idea of marketing. Maybe some joint stuff with the NHL with some money behind it after things get reset. This is all a joke, and the sport won't get better until the players start taking the problems of the sport seriously. They are entrenched in a market economy nothing else. In reality, we're in this mess because Goodenow has done nothing but hurt the sport since he walked into the door. He was more concerned with sucking the well dry, and teetotalling to millionaire players that figure it is their god given right to be paid like other sports regardless of revenues. They ask for New York money regarless of what their city's market is for hockey.

To suggest that this disaster will be made up in a short time is dilusional at best. Their 54% of revenues now is likely as good as it will get because in a calendar year, they will get their linkage, except the pie will be much smaller. Maybe if some of these teams had some cash for marketing schemes, sane business partners in the players, exposure, just some competance by the Players Association , we wouldn't be in this mess, and the sport would be thriving. All of this has to do with player salaries, it has been an issue forever with players in all small markets giving up players they can't afford, and trying desparately to keep up with the Jones' of the NHL and be competitive by spending a little more than you have. And now we are on the verge of doing something not even baseball has done, and that is cancel an entire season. We all saw what happened to baseball and that is America's pasttime, they still haven't completely recovered and it's 10 years later. What happens to a sport in America that's not even one of the top 4 or 5 sports as it is? It goes down the toilet is the answer and will probably be as popular cricket is.

You can take whatever side you want in CBA neogeotiations, but the fact of the matter is we're in this mess because of Bob Goodenow. The owners have nothing to do with all the things I just mentioned that Bob Goodenow has done. Now if there is no season, you will see empty arenas. It's not because angry fans are boycotting the sport, it's because they could really care less. There were really only 3 markets doing any kind of good in the south, one is Los Angeles (they were always up and down), one is Tampa Bay (only because they won a Stanley Cup), and one is Dallas (won a Stanley Cup, but is also legitmatelly developing a viable hockey market, they have built about 25 new ice rinks, has good attendance rates and one of its hockey programs called the Texas Tornado has developed legit NHL prospects and sent them to division I hockey schools). The others are screwed because they are handcuffed by payroll that won't allow them to grow the game. Other than that you have Bob Goodenow trying to force market economies down the throats, when the league needs to make sure of the viability of all franchises. If hockey can't make it down south, why is there a CHL, UHL, and on and on, and they seem to make it work. Obviously these markets don't care because the payrolls of players not only make it impossible to market the game, but unaffordable for the average person to take their kids to a game. That is what grows the game, regardless of where you are. As far as the southern markets go, it would also help them to have some success, but with payroll dispairities it isn't like they have a shot at contention any time soon.


It's really quite simple. I call myself pro owner, because although I don't agree with a hard cap, I agree that having two sides as partners with a guaranteed stake in the game. You get your share and we get ours, and as the game grows, so does both shares. I understand why the players like Goodenow, he made you rich. But if the cost of your riches kills the league, it is bad for everyone.

 

[OilerFan4Life]

Both sides have to realize that the consequences are gonna be much higher in Jan 2006 then they are now. Its a shame that the players dont understand that owners jobs arent to fill the PA's pockets, or in Modano's case his frikin dog, but to actually make a profit.

 

[Trottier]

How hard is that to follow?

I'm not denying that the owners appear to have more bullets in their holster, so to speak.

And I also do not claim to know what the exact negative repercussions of the league declaring an impasse, etc. down the road would hold for the NHLPA.

But, I think at this juncture, one still has to at least give Goodenow & Co. a bit more benefit of the doubt - even if you totally oppose their POV - than to suggest that they are deaf, dumb and blind fools who are digging their own graves...Simply because, to date, they have not accepted an offer and are bumming out fans in the process.

If they are total fools and are summarily destroyed, we will see in due time, and it will be one heck of a story.

Currently, I'm dubious of such a grand melodrama unfolding, and am suggesting that some are rushing to a final judgment on the outcome.

And substituting their own emotions/frustration/hopes for reality. With a degree of certainty that can be challenged.

It's really quite simple. I call myself pro owner, because although I don't agree with a hard cap, I agree that having two sides as partners with a guaranteed stake in the game.

Ironically, I am pro-ownership when it comes to labor negotiations. Accordingly, I find myself agreeing with much of what the pro-owners posters say on this board (as opposed to the sheer "big market/player hater" types) as it relates to this very CBA. For example, the players do need to come to grips with instituting a direct tie between league revenues and how much is allocated toward payrolls, IMO.

However, one can be pro-owner and virulently anti-hardcap. I suspect both of us fit into that category.

 

[NJD Jester]

There were really only 3 markets doing any kind of good in the south, one is Los Angeles (they were always up and down), one is Tampa Bay (only because they won a Stanley Cup), and one is Dallas (won a Stanley Cup, but is also legitmatelly developing a viable hockey market, they have built about 25 new ice rinks, has good attendance rates and one of its hockey programs called the Texas Tornado has developed legit NHL prospects and sent them to division I hockey schools).

This is an important point, because a lot of people misunderstand criticism of NHL expansion.

The problem isn't expanding into the American south or the southwest, or even California. It's expanding into bad hockey markets. Carolina, Phoenix and to a certain extent Anaheim just haven't worked. Atlanta's on the brink.

But just because these teams haven't had the success of Dallas or Tampa Bay doesn't mean expansion to the south is a bad idea. What about adding a second team to Texas? What about becoming the first professional league to expand to Las Vegas?

The NHL needs to take a good hard look at what franchises work, which ones do not, and make some changes.

 

[hyena]

The problem isn't expanding into the American south or the southwest, or even California. It's expanding into bad hockey markets. Carolina, Phoenix and to a certain extent Anaheim just haven't worked. Atlanta's on the brink.

i know it's hard for some people to accept, but carolina isn't a bad hockey market.

 

[Greschner4]

i know it's hard for some people to accept, but carolina isn't a bad hockey market.

Other than the fact that they haven't drawn squat for seven years, you're right.

That team never should have been moved out of Hartford.

 

[OilerFan4Life]

i know it's hard for some people to accept, but carolina isn't a bad hockey market.

Only when there in the SC Finals man.

 

[GKJ]

Maybe if the players didn't drive salaries through the roof, the game could be promoted properly with some finances thrown into marketing, the casual fan would pay attention more.

They ask for New York money regarless of what their city's market is for hockey.


You can take whatever side you want in CBA neogeotiations, but the fact of the matter is we're in this mess because of Bob Goodenow. The owners have nothing to do with all the things I just mentioned that Bob Goodenow has done. Now if there is no season, you will see empty arenas. It's not because angry fans are boycotting the sport, it's because they could really care less. There were really only 3 markets doing any kind of good in the south, one is Los Angeles (they were always up and down), one is Tampa Bay (only because they won a Stanley Cup), and one is Dallas (won a Stanley Cup, but is also legitmatelly developing a viable hockey market, they have built about 25 new ice rinks, has good attendance rates and one of its hockey programs called the Texas Tornado has developed legit NHL prospects and sent them to division I hockey schools). The others are screwed because they are handcuffed by payroll that won't allow them to grow the game. Other than that you have Bob Goodenow trying to force market economies down the throats, when the league needs to make sure of the viability of all franchises. If hockey can't make it down south, why is there a CHL, UHL, and on and on, and they seem to make it work. Obviously these markets don't care because the payrolls of players not only make it impossible to market the game, but unaffordable for the average person to take their kids to a game. That is what grows the game, regardless of where you are. As far as the southern markets go, it would also help them to have some success, but with payroll dispairities it isn't like they have a shot at contention any time soon.


It's really quite simple. I call myself pro owner, because although I don't agree with a hard cap, I agree that having two sides as partners with a guaranteed stake in the game. You get your share and we get ours, and as the game grows, so does both shares. I understand why the players like Goodenow, he made you rich. But if the cost of your riches kills the league, it is bad for everyone.

You can mock me if you want, the fact of matter is that, well, you're wrong. Plain and simple. For all the reasons that you don't want to acknowledge that I made. The players have nothing to do with ESPN, that is all management and business. Bob Goodenow has no role in the business of the NHL, just the business of the players. It's up to the team to market the players, although some players will go out and do it themselves, but they're promoting themselves more than they're promoting the game. Bob Goodenow did not expand to the south. Bob Goodenow did not neogeotiate terrible TV deals, and Bob Goodenow has absolutly nothing to do with the marketing aspect. Bob Goodenow does not neogeotiate player salaries and Bob Goodenow does not pay the players. No one told the owners to give the players outrageous salaries. If the business and making money and not spending more than their making was at the forefront of their minds they wouldn't pay the players outrageous salaries and they would go tell them to take a hike and they can play somewhere else until their demand comes down. It's not Bob Goodenow's fault that Gary Bettman wants the players to pay for the owners mistakes. These are facts.Bob Goodenow is only the bad guy by name. He has gotten the players to make some concessions. If he hasn't then the players made the concessions themselves. It was up to the owners to control their spending for 10 years, they failed to do it, before about 3 years ago Gary Bettman told the owners if they had a problem with the CBA, to shut up. We also all know that spending money doesn't mean you are winning in the end. If the product is good on the ice, it doesn't matter how much your players are making, if the fans are coming to see it, you're going to make money. I don't care if guys like Alexander Khavanov or PJ Axelsson are making $12M a year or $400K a year.


You can blame Bob Goodenow all you want for mistakes Gary Bettman and his owners made. The fact of the matter is, that is just completely unfounded, wrong, and not uninformed, but just flat out not seeing the big picture.

Anyone who thinks Bob Goodenow created this problem is wrong. That is not my opinion; that is a fact.

 

[GKJ]

Other than the fact that they haven't drawn squat for seven years, you're right.

That team never should have been moved out of Hartford.

To be honest Hartford wasn't doing much better. But they also played inside a mall and an old arena. Not a state of the art building.

 

[quat]

The players are the product. You don't go to hockey games to watch owners and GM's work the phones. They should be paid adequetally for their part in a $2B business.

If this is true, then the players could simply go to a parking lot, stand around and talk about poodles 82 times a year in 15 different locations and rake in the 2 billion themselves. I'm certain you are correct, and it's just a matter of time.

After all, the players are what brings in the fans, not the hockey.



LOL Even under the most draconian contract offered by the NHL (which IMO, is asking more than they need), the players are still more than "adequetally" paid as you put it.

 

[NJD Jester]

i know it's hard for some people to accept, but carolina isn't a bad hockey market.

Yeah, but it's not exactly a good one, either.

The Canes had a nice bump around the Cup run, but last season they drew just over 12,000 fans per game. And that's only two seasons removed from the Finals.

And no, you can't judge everything by the gate. But tell me: Where do the Hurricanes rank in North Carolina sports?

 

[GKJ]

If this is true, then the players could simply go to a parking lot, stand around and talk about poodles 82 times a year in 15 different locations and rake in the 2 billion themselves. I'm certain you are correct, and it's just a matter of time.

After all, the players are what brings in the fans, not the hockey.



LOL Even under the most draconian contract offered by the NHL (which IMO, is asking more than they need), the players are still more than "adequetally" paid as you put it.

I shouldn't say adequatally, they do get paid more than they should, but the people who say they get paid to play a game, and help run a business.

 

[AM]

Yup

Find it amazing that the economic PhDs on this thread are absolutely, positively certain that the players "MUST!" accept the owner's offer "RIGHT NOW!"...or else they are "DOOMED!"

These same folks apparently double as psychics, too. As in: laying out the scenario that will unfold over the next 6, 12, 24 months.

Very instructive for this reader and I'm sure we are all grateful for this insight, these "facts". Who needs to follow the negotiations? We already know who is "WRONG!" and how it will turn out, thanks to these highly-confident clairvoyants.

Of course, one saw the same declarations back in September-December, with predictions that the players would cave in/be doomed by January. But never mind....

Most fascinating is that "THE IDIOT!" Bob Goodenow and the "GREEDY!" union members whom he represents have not dialed into the sage advice of HF's self-assured economic geniuses/fortune tellers.

I mean, it's sooooo plain for all to see, isn't it?

Your dear players have won alot so far.... -1billion and counting!

 

[Jaded-Fan]

But, I think at this juncture, one still has to at least give Goodenow & Co. a bit more benefit of the doubt - even if you totally oppose their POV - than to suggest that they are deaf, dumb and blind fools who are digging their own graves...Simply because, to date, they have not accepted an offer and are bumming out fans in the process.

You could be right, but for the life of me I can not see what that magic hidden ace up their sleeves could be if they can not split the owners like baseball could. The owners can certainly live longer before the pain hits than the players can. So until someone can come up with some plausible or even implausible hidden ace that the NHLPA could hope to pull this out for them, my smart money is landing on the most obvious answer, 'they are deaf, dumb and blind fools who are digging their own graves.'