Linkage is the way to go

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by kremlin, Feb 10, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. kremlin

    kremlin Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    854
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    You hear all these players talking about how they want to be partners with the NHL, but in fact, they don't.

    You hear all these players talk about how they're fighting this battle for the next generation, but in fact, they aren't.

    The NHL has offered a scheme that includes linkage to league revenues as well as profit sharing. Well, that sounds like a partnership to me. If the league is doing good, then the players only benefit; cap will go up as revenues will go up and players will benefit from increased profits long-term. Sure, short term the players will take a beating, as the league has suffered hard throughout this lockout. With each day passing, the pie to divide is getting smaller and smaller. Then you hear several players talking about how they're fighting this battle for the next generation, which is an absolute false argument. If they were in fact fighting this battle for the next generation, a deal would have been in place already. In fact, I dare to say that the players don't care too much about the so-called 'next generation'. The only care about the short-term, which is like the next 5 years or so; during this time they want to make as much money as possible. However, it will take years for the league to recover from this lockout, as many stakeholders don't want anything to do with damaged goods, i.e. the NHL. Hence, linkage will hurt the incomes of these players in a major way, as revenues are going down, way down. However, if they were really fighting for the next generation, then the proposed linkage and profit sharing is the ultimate deal for the players. Why, one might ask? Well, after suffering from this lockout for the next couple of years, the league will eventually blossom and both revenues as well as profits will go up. As a result, the cap (linkage) will go up and players will benefit from the profit sharing scheme. Now that's what I call a partnership.

    For the NHL to blossom in the future, however, it's not enough to sit on the current product; too many people think the sport is boring, too difficult to follow, etc. Hence, rule changes to simplify the game will help get more people interested. Furthermore, hockey players are boring! There are some fine athletes among them, but none of them will make it in showbizz, as they're not flamboyant as for example some NFL players. Players like Ovechkin & Malkin got critisized for showboating at the WJC, while playing the USA. In my opinion, the NHL needs a lot more players like this, as these type of actions get the fans agitated and of their seats. It's all about showbizz, and if these players don't realize that, well, then they should be playing at some lower level where it's all about hockey!
     
  2. GKJ

    GKJ Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    137,988
    Likes Received:
    1,512
    Trophy Points:
    215
    So when the NHL loses $24M next year they can cut their cap number in half? Gee? If I was a player where do I sign?


    As another poster here said, "link me to the dying ship". That's on'y going to create more insanity.
     
  3. Ar-too

    Ar-too Zealous Scrub

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2004
    Messages:
    11,112
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Network Engineer
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Would they prefer layoffs?
     
  4. kremlin

    kremlin Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    854
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    You're just like the players, thinking SHORT-TERM.......the "as-long-as-I-get-paid- screw-the-league" attitude.

    It's inevitable that the league will lose a LOT of money next year, as NHL hockey = damaged goods. And the league will most likely lose money the year after that as well as they year after that. But like I said, long-term the players will benefit big-time from linkage & profit sharing. Short-term, they won't benefit at all or only marginally, if the league actually starts making some profit (which is very good possible, despite revenues dropping). If this season is cancelled, which is will be, the players will have to settle for far less next year than what they're offered now. Or, they can hold out for another season, but let's face it, the league is already dead. After two or three season without NHL, there's no doctor who can resuscitate the league.....GAME OVER

    Furthermore, the players only share in profits (which they will do long-term), not in the losses. If the players wanted a full partnership, let them share in losses as well. It will be funny to see how many of these hockey players will have to sell their villas after one or two season.
     
  5. kremlin

    kremlin Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    854
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    No, they prefer two seasons without any pay ;) Well, there's of course the 10K they get from the PA every month and the small amount of money they make in Europe (exception Russia, where they can make big bucks), but that still doesn't even amount to the league's minimum under a new CBA ;)
     
  6. GKJ

    GKJ Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    137,988
    Likes Received:
    1,512
    Trophy Points:
    215

    What guarentees me that the NHL will flourish in this enviroment? Why keep losing money? If the owners want a partnership with the players why put them in a situation where they get screwed. If I were a player, there is no guarentee that the NHL will be back to where it once was. This has nothing to do with what I get paid. If this was such an issue, then maybe teams shouldn't be giving me $9M a year. Dig?

    If this was such an issue, then maybe there shouldn't be teams in markets doomed to fail. Maybe the NHL should market their game. Maybe the NHL should enforce the rules which would ultimately open up the game. There are more underlying issues than what I make as a player. Some baseball players make 14 times what the average NHL salary is. Maybe the players aren't the problem?
     
  7. kremlin

    kremlin Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    854
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Who's talking about losing money? I said that revenues will drop, but that doesn't mean that teams won't make a profit. The linkage proposal actually allows the teams to make a profit much easier.

    The owners don't insist on a partnership, I believe that way the players standpoint.

    I seriously don't dig (understand) your argument of handing out 9M a year to players? Yes, GM's messed up, but the freemarket + greedy agents + greedy PA drove up the players salaries as well. Hence, not only the GM's can be blamed for silly Chris Pronger, John Leclair, etc. type of contracts. But I have no idea why you bring this up. I really don't understand what you're trying to prove with this point, please elaborate!

    The NHL is marketing its game (expansion for example), but they need the boring players to help as well. Revenues have gone way up under Bettman, but could have been much higher. I do agree, the league needs to do even more to market their product, but I already said that in my initial post.
     
  8. Beukeboom Fan

    Beukeboom Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    14,096
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    171
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Home Page:
    IMO, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

    If the league is making money, it's GOOD for the players. If the league is NOT making money, over the long term it's VERY BAD for the players. That's what has us in the situation we are in.

    You could make a case that the league would be better off without the weakest 10 markets. However, the league is going to do everything possible to defend the current franchises. That means that they will go to EXTREME measures to make sure that happens. By extreme measures, I mean flushing this entire season down the toilet, and doing whatever it takes to get some sort of cap/linkage system in place. They will try the impasse route, or just outwait the players. If the players continue to have their head in the sand about scenario's where they "win" the dispute, this is going to be a LONG, LONG, bitter situation. Add in the longer it goes, the more damage is done, and the more instrangent the owners are going to become about linkage.

    If the PA would have accepted a $32-42M cap in September, the league wouldn't need linkage. The longer this goes, the more damage is done, and the more I see the owners insisting on some sort of linkage, which just makes the situation even more intractable. Both sides now are trying to avoid paying for the damage done to the game - the players want to avoid it altogether, and the owners want to share the pain with "linkage".

    If the players don't capitulate, the only solution I see where there's NHL hockey in one year is if you shut the NHL down, and pray the owners get the impasse declared by the NLRB. I really think that there would be a substantial number of players to cross if that happens. All of the guys that have existing contracts are going to want to get the 76% that they have coming - so I expect they would cross the picket line.
     
  9. kremlin

    kremlin Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    854
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    All would, except Bryan McCabe of course, as he will be not play under a cap ;)
     
  10. Owen Wilson

    Owen Wilson Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    1,836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario
    Home Page:
    I don't believe linkage is a must

    Hard cap at 50 million, dollar for dollar luxury tax after 40 million, floor of 32 million

    The PA wouldn't reject this one right away, that's for sure
     
  11. s7ark

    s7ark Yoshi

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    27,488
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Home Page:

    Yeah they would.

    The PA rejects everything, even their own proposals...
     
  12. RangerBoy

    RangerBoy TRUST THE PROCESS

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    38,128
    Likes Received:
    1,476
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    New York
    Home Page:
    You are right about one thing.It is a scheme :)
     
  13. ti-vite

    ti-vite Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Outwait yes. at 'season' end, there will be 489 players without a contract. In 2 years that number climbs towards 600.

    The automatic reset button for the owners is coming soon. Cap or no cap.
     
  14. kerrly

    kerrly Registered User

    Joined:
    May 16, 2004
    Messages:
    809
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Regina
    If the NHL loses $24m next year, the cap goes down by 2%. I think its dumb for the players if they choose to accept a stationary hard cap that doesn't float with the revenues. The first couple years will be the hardest, the NHL might take some losses. After that they will almost assuredly go up again and the players will benefit from that. If the players truely are asking for a partnership, I don't see what is more of a partnership than linkage. And if the revenues continue to grow, the percentage number can even be negotiated higher down the road, because it will take less of that percentage to meet other expenses.
     
  15. FanSince2014

    FanSince2014 What'd He Say?

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,082
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Concur.
     
  16. And can you explain, in detail, how the system you propose would work? How would that guaranteed cap, luxury tax and salary floor work in a period of depressed revenues? No, you can't, because that doesn't work. It adds to debt loads and only sends the league in the same direction they are on right now. Your suggestion is not a real world solution in the new volatile world of professional hockey.
     
  17. Owen Wilson

    Owen Wilson Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    1,836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario
    Home Page:
    You're not guaranteed anything when you're running a business.
     
  18. ScottyBowman

    ScottyBowman Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,361
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Detroit
    Home Page:
    Sell the team. Go buy a dairy queen. Their are no guarantees in life.
     
  19. kremlin

    kremlin Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    854
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Not saying it's a must, just saying that long-term, linkage could pay huge dividends for the players. Sadly though, they claim to fight for the next generation, but they're only fighting for their own paycheck short-term.
     
  20. kremlin

    kremlin Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    854
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Yeah, just let every player become a free agent and then offer them 3000 US$ per month plus travel expenses for the bus trips ;)
     
  21. AM

    AM Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,293
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    86
    The ship sinks

    All the fricken rats die too!

    (if it was my simile I'd call them leeches)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"