Lockout Discussion Thread 4.0

[Drydenwasthebest]

I'm not denying the fact that these are luxuries, but I kind of see flying first class, and having expensive rooms as giving the players the best chance at being well rested from the exhaustion of travelling. It's not like the players won't perform if they fly coach, but if the teams that pay for those luxury do it to give their team an advantage, I think you can categorize it as an expense to give your team an edge to win. I haven't done any studies on the matter but I know that flying coach for a 5hr flight (Vancouver to Montreal) is not comfortable and somewhat cramping. But alright for other shorter flights maybe it's not as big of an effect, however I just see those expenses as giving your franchise the best chance to arrive to the game in the most restful way possible.

Also lets just throw some numbers out there as rough: say it's $3000 per ticket for first class, and lets say 32 players travel, if we then consider 41 games on the road that is ~4mil in travel expenses a season.

Lets say hotels cost $500 a night, 2 players per room, for 2 nights on average per away game so that's 16 rooms for 41 games that's ~$0.6mil

So on the points you're contending it is not inconceivable that it's costing $5mil per team in travel and accommodation expenses, so that's $150mil for the whole league.

So of $1.65billion that's ~ 10% of the owners share put into the players to try and give them the best chance at competing for away games. From a team by team basis, is it not worth it to try and give your team the best chance of winning?

I mean, I think you could try and leave it up to the players to get their own way to the game, but as I mentioned in a previous post I think that would lead to more chaos then solve anything.

Please remember that the 10% related to flights and sleeping arrangements is only one of the costs given over to benefit the players. 10% for that, 10% for trainers, 10% for doctors, 10% etc, etc, etc... See where I am going? I agree that it is a good idea for the owners to pay for first class and good hotels and better quality food, and the best equipment, etc... to increase their team's chance of success, but it is also beneficial for the players as well. It is a benefit for them, not a requirement or necessity. It is also a cost, an expense, that the OWNERS pay exclusively. That is what I was trying to point out.

 

[Drydenwasthebest]

Within the NHL, I see 30 different businesses competing against each other. Perks such as first class flights and expensive hotel rooms have been used to attract talent. Using those perks as a reason to limit future salaries across the board, throughout the industry, because some of those businesses have been failing? That logic doesn't work for me.

Every team provides those "perks". As such, the all of the owners pay for those perks. As such it is an expense that the players benefit from that the owners pay for. Especially when you consider that the NHL is the best employer in the world for hockey players in regards to those perks. Those perks are expenses that the owners pay and should be acknowledged as such.

 

[Myron Gaines*]

Please remember that the 10% related to flights and sleeping arrangements is only one of the costs given over to benefit the players. 10% for that, 10% for trainers, 10% for doctors, 10% etc, etc, etc... See where I am going? I agree that it is a good idea for the owners to pay for first class and good hotels and better quality food, and the best equipment, etc... to increase their team's chance of success, but it is also beneficial for the players as well. It is a benefit for them, not a requirement or necessity. It is also a cost, an expense, that the OWNERS pay exclusively. That is what I was trying to point out.

That's exactly what I was trying to say on the other thread, but some people can't make the difference between actual requirements and benefits.

Every expense from the owners is grouped into one category, but it doesn't mean it's all requirements to do the job they're supposed to do, which is playing professional hockey at the highest level. And when people point that out, it doesn't mean they're envious or that they wish players didn't benefit from those things. It's ludicrous to think that way.

 

[HCH]

I can't speak for all the players but it's clear that they feel a) insulted by the initial offers and b) feel like they're losing at every corner.

It's not a matter of being insulted or about viewing this negotiation as winner/loser situation. It is about developing a sustainable business model.

A majority of the owners don't take a LIFE risk with their team. For the players it literally their life, and their average career isn't even that long.

Hundreds of thousands of people take a bigger LIFE risk than hockey players and make less money. As for hockey being their life, that is their career choice. A lot of guys have made the same choice and have to change their careers. Just because you chose to pursue a career in hockey doesn't mean you should be immune from having to change careers when you don't want to.

The players trained all their lives and sacrificed a lot to get to where they are. Much more than your parents or you were willing to sacrifice (so it seems). They sacrifice a lot every year. Being on the road for so long is a major issue that most people would not be able to comply with. Having to stay in tip-top shape is a major issue that most people would be able to comply with. Being a public figure is a significantly major issue that most people wouldn't even consider.

I repeat my above argument

Why do you feel the owners are owed 50% of the fans' money?

The players put 50% of the fans money in their pockets. The owners incur a great many expenses and none put 50% of the fans' money in their pockets. In fact, there are quite a few don't get to put one dollar into their pockets

The current offer in it's current state is massive ground lost for the players - I think we'd all agree. So the players are hesitant to give to an unknown system that clearly starts off disadvantaging them from the get-go.

The problem is that the players can't or won't see the big picture. A smaller slice of a big pie can be a lot more than a big slice of a small pie... if in fact there is any pie left

I don't know where I stand on this but I can still consider it from the players' perspective and it makes a bit of sense.

It seems like the players have a victim mentality that is constantly being fed by Fehr and a large number of the hockey 'analysts' who used to be players. They also have a sense of entitlement and are willing to jeopardize the very industry that has been so good to them.

Baseball is really, really competitive even with its whack financial structure.

Baseball still remains a sport where some teams will never have a shot at winning and its popularity sagged for along time after the player strike. And that structure has Fehr's fingerprints all over it.

The owners would've encouraged even more revenue sharing if they were interested in parity.

Let's have more revenue sharing among the owners and among the players, too. The ratio of revenue between the lowest team and the highest is far closer than between the lowest player and the highest.

And the money comes from the fans, not the owner. Owners put very little of their money after the initial purchase - it's an investment not a continuous cost and for the most part the entire thing pays for itself and then some.

Hmmm... do you understand how business works? I don't even know where to begin on this one. That is simply an amazing couple of sentences.

Didn't the pendulum swing last lockout? Salary cap and a huge reduction in the HRR-pie seems awfully like they gave up a lot - no?

Yes it swung during the lockout but it swung back again during the term of the CBA

Now there are record revenues overall but problems with lower-revenue teams but to make up the difference they're going for the players. Seems wrong.

So are you saying the lower revenue teams shouldn't be offering such big contracts, because if you are, then you are on the side of the owners.

 

[Roulin]

I'm lefthanded... but torn on the issue. Free market/decertificiation/whatever would benefit me just in that my hockey team of choice is one of the more profitable ones, and ought to benefit to some extent in a freer market (although I haven't seen a lot of practical evidence in the past to convince me of that - with the restrictions still in place, of course, and a host of other factors in play). Increased regulation would just make everything easier to follow and a little less chaotic as a fan... I liked the old days when you could reasonably expect to retain players as long as you wanted, and that continuity and familiarity was attractive as a fan too.

I don't *really* care who makes how much and how the profits are distributed. There are sides to argue from what we know of the details of the negotiations and established precedents that might make us pick our own private thresholds for what is "fair" and what isn't. But at the end of the day, I don't really care if the owners pocket 57% or 43%. I really really don't care. As a fan, why would we. But I suppose as people who are entertained by competition between opposing sides, it's natural to pick a side even in this labour battle and go from there. Lacking our usual form of competition to spectate upon.

I know what you mean... truth be told, as much as I blame the owners and support decertification, if the players cave on every issue I will still be a fan of the game and it won't affect my life negatively at all. Hockey will still be a pleasure to watch. NHL players will still make plenty of money.

However, despite this, I'm still angry at the owners because this is an unjustified lockout. These are investors who do not rely on hockey for their livelihoods, and yet they generally do very well off their involvement with the NHL. When they decide it's time to exit the game, there is almost always a huge payoff waiting for them. They have convinced governments to pay for their arenas. The idea that Molson purchased the Canadiens 3 years ago, charges what he does for ticket prices, makes the profits that he does, and voted in favor of the work stoppage is offensive to me. The idea that owners have given Bettman veto power over anything less than two thirds of the BOG vote, to treat the game like a single business and do whatever he has to to increase profits also offends me.

 

[Protest the Hero]

I'm pretty sure if Fehr allowed all players to vote on whether or not they agreed to the last proposal from the owners, the majority would have agreed to it. The concessions only affect the top 10% earners.

We all know why Fehr wants a 5 year CBA, let's not kid ourselves.

Above, where did you read that Molson supports the lockout?

 

[Roulin]

Above, where did you read that Molson supports the lockout?

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/8...us-vote-owners-support-league-imposed-lockout

I realize there's speculation that Molson may be a moderate. But the only real information we have is that he initially voted for the lockout, and has not spoken out against it. I'm of the opinion that if he believes the BOG is acting wrongly, he has the responsibility to do something about it.

 

[DAChampion]

I'm pretty sure if Fehr allowed all players to vote on whether or not they agreed to the last proposal from the owners, the majority would have agreed to it. The concessions only affect the top 10% earners.

We all know why Fehr wants a 5 year CBA, let's not kid ourselves.

Above, where did you read that Molson supports the lockout?

Conversely, we have no idea if the owners would support a plan that converges to 50/50 with 100% make-whole.

We only know that the executive committee (Jeremy Jacobs, etc) does not support it.

 

[DAChampion]

That's exactly what I was trying to say on the other thread, but some people can't make the difference between actual requirements and benefits.

Every expense from the owners is grouped into one category, but it doesn't mean it's all requirements to do the job they're supposed to do, which is playing professional hockey at the highest level. And when people point that out, it doesn't mean they're envious or that they wish players didn't benefit from those things. It's ludicrous to think that way.

Problem is, you have not demonstrated that the players are receiving any ridiculous benefits, and even if they were, they are concessions the players received in exchange for accepting a 57% salary cap, whereas previously they were getting the free market rate of 76%.

Yes it's a benefit that Saku Koivu got good cancer treatment -- for both Koivu and then-owner George Gillette and the Montreal fans. You can be sure that Gillette made back the money he paid into Koivu's medical care many times over. The losers from that arrangement are Joe Thornton and the Boston Bruins of that era.

It's simply facetious to imply that owners don't benefit from giving their employees better medical care. They certainly benefit. The owner ends up with a superior labor force.

There's also a general economic rule, which is kind of common sense. Employees tend to be paid less if they have more benefits, because the benefits are somewhat equivalent to pay. This came up in arguments two years ago over striking teachers. Some right-wingers were complaining that public school teachers get free pensions. An economist argued this was not correct, as the concessions they got in pensions inevitably meant lower base pay as well. In the case of the players we see this explicitly: they get better working conditions as a concession for lower base pay. The reality is that both employees and employers pay for benefits, as counter-intuitive as that may be.

 

[DAChampion]

100% incorrect. My argument is about what is fair between the owners who pay for everything related to hockey, and the players who people want to watch play. Both sides need the other, more or less, equally. People pay to see great players in their favoured teams' jerseys, and the owners pay everything necessary to bring in those players and make the experience at the arena as good as possible.

By the way, the players' worth is not "capped" beyond what the NHL makes. There is a salary cap in place, but as long as revenues grow, so do salaries. Significantly. Now, the owners DO pay to "sell" their team, and certain teams are far more marketable than others, no matter which players are on the team (Leafs and Habs, for example). So, owners are quite necessary to the entire process. As are the players. Ultimately, though, the owners are MORE necessary. In any case, giving both sides a 50/50 split is fair since both sides are necessary for the league to grow and develop.

The 50-50 is completely arbitrary. It's just another number between 0 and 100, and many people on this thread have posted counterexamples. For some businesses labour get a lot less than 50%, other times, they get a lot more. For the NHL, all we know is the free market rate: 76%.

It's not as though the owners are getting a 50% profit margin. They will not be getting a 50% profit margin, and to my knowledge no significant industries do. With their 50% they still need to pay for a lot of expenses such as scouts, GMs, et cetera. It's not a relevant number because we have very little idea what the pie actually looks like. We also don't know the full list of expenses subtracted from HRR.

The true profit margin for the NHL last year was 4.2%: 140 million in operating income out of 3.3 billion dollars in revenue. I think that's about average. If player salaries were to drop from 57% to 50%, and everything else remained fixed, the profit margin would rise to 11.2%, which is extremely high. However, it wouldn't go that high, I suspect lower salaries for players would lead to higher salaries for scouts.

Some examples. Apple Computers has profit margins of 35%. Wal Mart has profit margins of 6%.

 

[ChemiseBleuHonnete]

Problem is, you have not demonstrated that the players are receiving any ridiculous benefits, and even if they were, they are concessions the players received in exchange for accepting a 57% salary cap, whereas previously they were getting the free market rate of 76%.

Yes it's a benefit that Saku Koivu got good cancer treatment -- for both Koivu and then-owner George Gillette and the Montreal fans. You can be sure that Gillette made back the money he paid into Koivu's medical care many times over. The losers from that arrangement are Joe Thornton and the Boston Bruins of that era.

There's also a general economic rule, which is kind of common sense. Employees tend to be paid less if they have more benefits, because the benefits are somewhat equivalent to pay. This came up in arguments two years ago over striking teachers. Some right-wingers were complaining that public school teachers get free pensions. An economist argued this was not correct, as the concessions they got in pensions inevitably meant lower base pay as well. In the case of the players we see this explicitly: they get better working conditions as a concession for lower base pay.

Saku's got the same treatment as any other guy in his condition living here would have received.

 

[DAChampion]

Saku's got the same treatment as any other guy in his condition living here would have received.

That may be, if so, then my argument still stands in general (though not in the specifics) as it would apply quite well to most of the players in the NHL in American cities without universal health care.

However,

My father passed away from prostate cancer in the Quebec health care system 11 months ago. I saw first-hand that different people get different levels of treatment. Some got way more attention from the doctors and nurses, better rooms, etc. The media and the politicians say that we are a compassionate society where everybody gets treated equally, but that is not what I witnessed. I saw strong variations in treatment quality. There's also a lot of things you can pay extra for, we paid for some and other people paid for more. If you have an assistant with you you get better care.

There's a lot more to cancer treatment than just the waiting time to use the machines. There's also all the treatment from complications, such as infections, etc. The frequency and detail of visits from nutritionists. The speed with which medications are approved. Et cetera.

I really doubt Koivu was treated as horribly as my father was.

 

[groovejuice]

Came across this article on the lockout. I, highly recommend reading it. Feel free to use salt if you must.


http://t.co/m6k0QXJR

 

[Kriss E]

Came across this article on the lockout. I, highly recommend reading it. Feel free to use salt if you must.


http://t.co/m6k0QXJR

I think anybody pretty much entirely blaming one side is bias.

I don't think he's entirely wrong, I think the NHL is trying to make Fehr look bad to the eyes of the players, but to say they rather do that than play a season is quite much imo.
Both sides have handled it poorly. Imo, players should have accepted the last deal, or maybe see if they can get a bit more in the make-whole. The rest of the proposition seemed pretty good to me.

 

[Myron Gaines*]

Problem is, you have not demonstrated that the players are receiving any ridiculous benefits, and even if they were, they are concessions the players received in exchange for accepting a 57% salary cap, whereas previously they were getting the free market rate of 76%.

Yes it's a benefit that Saku Koivu got good cancer treatment -- for both Koivu and then-owner George Gillette and the Montreal fans. You can be sure that Gillette made back the money he paid into Koivu's medical care many times over. The losers from that arrangement are Joe Thornton and the Boston Bruins of that era.

It's simply facetious to imply that owners don't benefit from giving their employees better medical care. They certainly benefit. The owner ends up with a superior labor force.

There's also a general economic rule, which is kind of common sense. Employees tend to be paid less if they have more benefits, because the benefits are somewhat equivalent to pay. This came up in arguments two years ago over striking teachers. Some right-wingers were complaining that public school teachers get free pensions. An economist argued this was not correct, as the concessions they got in pensions inevitably meant lower base pay as well. In the case of the players we see this explicitly: they get better working conditions as a concession for lower base pay. The reality is that both employees and employers pay for benefits, as counter-intuitive as that may be.

Those weren't concessions. The concession for the salary cap was recieving 57% to 43% even if it was unfair. Some of those benefits are not tools to play hockey, and I'm not talking about medical attention, equipement or gyms that have been there pre-cap era. I've never said they were ridiculous benefits, but I do think some of them are privileges and not job requirements, which is what were debating. Privileges are relied to playing hockey at the highest level, but not in any way instrumental to the product on the ice, downgrading them a bit wouldn't significantly hurt the product or work conditions as compared to equipement, medical attention and training facilities. Some of the best hockey games I've seen we're 20 years ago when the NHL didn't have the wingspan that it has today. It's easy to blur the line between job requirements and actual privileges when we talk about the greatest hockey players in the world who play for the greatest hockey league in the world. It is absolutely understandable to find players who act like they're being oppressed annoying.

I sense that the problem with the NHLPA is not that the owners are treating them to unsuitable work conditions or pay; It's that they lose a bit of salary and are scared to be condemned to lose more in the future. Which is not in the league's interest, because players can easily opt to play other leagues if the pay is greater, even though their working conditions or privileges aren't as good.

 

[Roulin]

Came across this article on the lockout. I, highly recommend reading it. Feel free to use salt if you must.


http://t.co/m6k0QXJR

I agree with the premise:

Because anyone and everyone who can read can indeed see for themselves: The sides are thread-the-needle close to a deal. The league wants a 10-year CBA with an eight-year out clause. The union wants an eight-year CBA with a six-year out clause. The league wants five-year contract limits with seven-year limits for teams to sign their own players. The union wants eight-year limits to apply across the board.

...

This is what the league angrily stalked away from? Yes, this is what the league angrily stalked away from, on cue, as choreographed.

...but I don't know about the conclusion that the goal is to get rid of Fehr. The man is 64 years old - does he even want to be involved after this CBA expires?

 

[Kriss E]

The players trained all their lives and sacrificed a lot to get to where they are. Much more than your parents or you were willing to sacrifice (so it seems). They sacrifice a lot every year. Being on the road for so long is a major issue that most people would not be able to comply with. Having to stay in tip-top shape is a major issue that most people would be able to comply with. Being a public figure is a significantly major issue that most people wouldn't even consider.

My parents fled their country in order to secure a better life for my brother and myself. They left their actual life behind, as well as their families. Everything and everybody they had ever known, they left behind. They did so because they actually were avoiding bombs and bullets. They didn't have much of a choice.
A little kid that's growing up safe of everything and decides to focus on hockey sacrifices as much as the kid growing up safe of everything and decides to go into medecine. What do they sacrifice? Some parties..?
Being on the road so long is also something a lot of people would enjoy. Having to stay in tip top shape is a privilege and should be a necessity if you truly care about your health, not a sacrifice.
Not every hockey player is a public figure, and there's just as many people loving it.

Actually if an owner wanted to skimp on stuff it would be his prerogative but his franchise would clearly not be appreciated as there are other teams which would. It's call competition. And the money comes from the fans, not the owner. Owners put very little of their money after the initial purchase - it's an investment not a continuous cost and for the most part the entire thing pays for itself and then some.

Once the consumer pays for something, that money becomes the one of the provider. That's his money. He is free to do whatever he chooses with it. It's not your money.
When you buy a pizza, do you think that it's still your money or the owner of the restaurant's?

And yea, owners put little money outside the initial purchase other than the initial amount. In one of the most recent case, we're talking about half a billion dollars, but who's counting..
After, they also invest some of the millions they earn from their business, but again, who's counting.

 

[Myron Gaines*]

I think anybody pretty much entirely blaming one side is bias.

I don't think he's entirely wrong, I think the NHL is trying to make Fehr look bad to the eyes of the players, but to say they rather do that than play a season is quite much imo.
Both sides have handled it poorly. Imo, players should have accepted the last deal, or maybe see if they can get a bit more in the make-whole. The rest of the proposition seemed pretty good to me.

Same here. I think people blame one side or the other out of frustration, they have to blame someone. While it's easy to fall in the blame game, it's as easy to fall into relativism too. But I base my opinions on what I see from each side, and I do believe that what Bettman pulled on his last presser appearing to be so emotional and hurt is BS

Same goes to Fehr who goes around asking WTF just happened.

 

[DAChampion]

Those weren't concessions. The concession for the salary cap was recieving 57% to 43% even if it was unfair. Some of those benefits are not tools to play hockey, and I'm not talking about medical attention, equipement or gyms that have been there pre-cap era. I've never said they were ridiculous benefits, but I do think some of them are privileges and not job requirements, which is what were debating. Privileges are relied to playing hockey at the highest level, but not in any way instrumental to the product on the ice, downgrading them a bit wouldn't significantly hurt the product or work conditions as compared to equipement, medical attention and training facilities. Some of the best hockey games I've seen we're 20 years ago when the NHL didn't have the wingspan that it has today. It's easy to blur the line between job requirements and actual privileges when we talk about the greatest hockey players in the world who play for the greatest hockey league in the world. It is absolutely understandable to find players who act like they're being oppressed annoying.

I sense that the problem with the NHLPA is not that the owners are treating them to unsuitable work conditions or pay; It's that they lose a bit of salary and are scared to be condemned to lose more in the future. Which is not in the league's interest, because players can easily opt to play other leagues if the pay is greater, even though their working conditions or privileges aren't as good.

What's "fair" is the players getting 76% of HRR, that's what they got in a free market system. When they agreed to go to 54% of HRR in 2005 (later bumped to 57%), the players got some concessions in return such as better working conditions. Before that point it was up to each individual team to decide how to treat their players on various issues that are now standardized.

What are these benefits that are not tools to hockey? People have mentioned better equipment, doctors, training facilities, flights, etc. Those are tools to better hockey. You could of course have hockey with players flying coach or riding buses, but it wouldn't be as good as hockey with players flying first class, whereby they will be oxygenated, better-rested, and have fewer back problems.

 

[Not a Fish]

The 50-50 is completely arbitrary. It's just another number between 0 and 100, and many people on this thread have posted counterexamples. For some businesses labour get a lot less than 50%, other times, they get a lot more. For the NHL, all we know is the free market rate: 76%.

It's not as though the owners are getting a 50% profit margin. They will not be getting a 50% profit margin, and to my knowledge no significant industries do. With their 50% they still need to pay for a lot of expenses such as scouts, GMs, et cetera. It's not a relevant number because we have very little idea what the pie actually looks like. We also don't know the full list of expenses subtracted from HRR.

The true profit margin for the NHL last year was 4.2%: 140 million in operating income out of 3.3 billion dollars in revenue. I think that's about average. If player salaries were to drop from 57% to 50%, and everything else remained fixed, the profit margin would rise to 11.2%, which is extremely high. However, it wouldn't go that high, I suspect lower salaries for players would lead to higher salaries for scouts.

Some examples. Apple Computers has profit margins of 35%. Wal Mart has profit margins of 6%.

You argue well and have raised some very valid points in support of the players. Others are showing their support for the owners. I support the team and not individual players. If a player gets traded he's gone. That's it that's all. Therefore, I don't care if the players/owners get 40% vs. 60% or 50% vs. 50%.

What I care about is what's best for my team; what's best for the Montreal Canadiens.

1. I like UFA to start at 29 or even 30 years old so that we keep our prospects longer (owners are asking for free agency to start at 28 yrs of age, therefore I support the owners on this point).

2. I would like to see a clause that makes it illegal to give players a no trade clause. I like to see more trades just like in the old days.

3. Teams should be able to negotiate and execute trades anytime during the year except during the playoffs.

4. No Player should not be allowed to veto a trade, or refuse to report to another team .

5. When negotiating trades, teams should be allowed to negotiate the percentage of the player salary that will be going to the other team and will therefore become part of the other team's salary cap.

6. Teams should be allowed to send any player down and to bring any player up from the AHL without going through wavers.

7. I don't see how offering a player a 10 or 15 year contract is good for the game. Set maximum contract length to: 8 years (players under 25), 6 years ( players under 28), 4 years (players over 30).

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

The 50-50 is completely arbitrary. It's just another number between 0 and 100, and many people on this thread have posted counterexamples. For some businesses labour get a lot less than 50%, other times, they get a lot more. For the NHL, all we know is the free market rate: 76%.

It's not as though the owners are getting a 50% profit margin. They will not be getting a 50% profit margin, and to my knowledge no significant industries do. With their 50% they still need to pay for a lot of expenses such as scouts, GMs, et cetera. It's not a relevant number because we have very little idea what the pie actually looks like. We also don't know the full list of expenses subtracted from HRR.

The true profit margin for the NHL last year was 4.2%: 140 million in operating income out of 3.3 billion dollars in revenue. I think that's about average. If player salaries were to drop from 57% to 50%, and everything else remained fixed, the profit margin would rise to 11.2%, which is extremely high. However, it wouldn't go that high, I suspect lower salaries for players would lead to higher salaries for scouts.

Some examples. Apple Computers has profit margins of 35%. Wal Mart has profit margins of 6%.

I'm pretty sure the dispute is over 50% of the profits no? It certainly isn't 50% of the revenues.

And you're right this negotiation is simply all about what the players are going to give up this time around. They certainly aren't winning anything here. So for Bettman to sit there and talk about the league 'giving, giving, giving' I'm not sure what he's talking about. They aren't giving anything here, it's just that they may be taking away less than they otherwise would.

And his whole position of 'we offered them a final contract and they tried to negotiate off of it so we walked away' is ridiculous. That's not how negotiations work, certainly not if you want an expedient solution.

I will repeat what I said earlier, he needs to be far less of a hard-ass if he wants to avoid this kind of stuff. He was a hard-ass at the beginning and he's being a hard-ass now. Won't surprise me if we lose the season (again.)

 

[DAChampion]

I'm pretty sure the dispute is over 50% of the profits no? It certainly isn't 50% of the revenues.

And you're right this negotiation is simply all about what the players are going to give up this time around. They certainly aren't winning anything here. So for Bettman to sit there and talk about the league 'giving, giving, giving' I'm not sure what he's talking about. They aren't giving anything here, it's just that they may be taking away less than they otherwise would.

And his whole position of 'we offered them a final contract and they tried to negotiate off of it so we walked away' is ridiculous. That's not how negotiations work, certainly not if you want an expedient solution.

I will repeat what I said earlier, he needs to be far less of a hard-ass if he wants to avoid this kind of stuff. He was a hard-ass at the beginning and he's being a hard-ass now. Won't surprise me if we lose the season (again.)

It's 50% of "hockey-related revenue", not profits.

Hockey-related revenue is the difference between some revenue and some costs, where I'm not sure what's included. For example, if you buy a $20 beer at the Bell Center, I think ~$9 goes to administer the beer counter, ~$11 goes to HRR, and thus ~$6 goes to the players, but I'm not sure.

I don't know if hotels, per diems, etc are subtracted from HRR.

The owners, with their share, are free to invest in better coaching, management, scouts, etc; or pocket the difference and have a nice profit margin.

ETA: This is why "50/50" is a misnomer: there is only one 50. The other 50% is an aggregate of profits, coaching, expenses, etc.

 

[ECWHSWI]

Which is why they have the upper hand. Owners are still making money from their other sources of revenue. Players, unless they invested their cash smartly (which, according to DAChampion, is not the case), aren't bringing in anything.

It's not because they still make millions (not billions) yearly, that they shouldn't want a 50-50 split. Seems only fair to me.

they're the product, they're not average joes you can easily replace without concequences... seriously, after so many thread does one stil need to explain this to anyone ?

neved said they were making billions a year, I said they were billionnaires, wich they are. If you cant make the difference, dont quote, thanks.

Now, wich parameters do you use to describe this as "fair" ? (I know, finance, that's the only thing you think you have - but besides that...)

 

[ECWHSWI]

You argue well and have raised some very valid points in support of the players. Others are showing their support for the owners. I support the team and not individual players. If a player gets traded he's gone. That's it that's all. Therefore, I don't care if the players/owners get 40% vs. 60% or 50% vs. 50%.

What I care about is what's best for my team; what's best for the Montreal Canadiens.

1. I like UFA to start at 29 or even 30 years old so that we keep our prospects longer (owners are asking for free agency to start at 28 yrs of age, therefore I support the owners on this point).

2. I would like to see a clause that makes it illegal to give players a no trade clause. I like to see more trades just like in the old days.

3. Teams should be able to negotiate and execute trades anytime during the year except during the playoffs.

4. No Player should not be allowed to veto a trade, or refuse to report to another team .

5. When negotiating trades, teams should be allowed to negotiate the percentage of the player salary that will be going to the other team and will therefore become part of the other team's salary cap.

6. Teams should be allowed to send any player down and to bring any player up from the AHL without going through wavers.

7. I don't see how offering a player a 10 or 15 year contract is good for the game. Set maximum contract length to: 8 years (players under 25), 6 years ( players under 28), 4 years (players over 30).

problem with that, and that's why I dont get this from the Owners part, is that you set up yourself for a lot of contract negociations while the players are in their prime.

Over time, longer contracts arent necessarly bad for the teams/league. For example, Everyone went crazy over Dipietro's contract, but below 5M for a GOOD goalie is a bargain nowadays, sure he got injured and all, but you get the point. Same for the Ov, Malkin, Crosby of the league, they may make a little more than they should, but by giving them a longer contract you're pretty much guaranteed to have all the good years the players can give ya.

I mean, we just drafted Galchenyuk, (assuming he becomes what he's projected to), do you really want to have to negotiate 3 or 4 contracts before he reaches his 30's or would you rather play it safe and make sure to have him till he's 33 or 34 ?

 

[ECWHSWI]

My parents fled their country in order to secure a better life for my brother and myself. They left their actual life behind, as well as their families. Everything and everybody they had ever known, they left behind. They did so because they actually were avoiding bombs and bullets. They didn't have much of a choice.
A little kid that's growing up safe of everything and decides to focus on hockey sacrifices as much as the kid growing up safe of everything and decides to go into medecine. What do they sacrifice? Some parties..?
Being on the road so long is also something a lot of people would enjoy. Having to stay in tip top shape is a privilege and should be a necessity if you truly care about your health, not a sacrifice.
Not every hockey player is a public figure, and there's just as many people loving it.


Once the consumer pays for something, that money becomes the one of the provider. That's his money. He is free to do whatever he chooses with it. It's not your money.
When you buy a pizza, do you think that it's still your money or the owner of the restaurant's?

And yea, owners put little money outside the initial purchase other than the initial amount. In one of the most recent case, we're talking about half a billion dollars, but who's counting..
After, they also invest some of the millions they earn from their business, but again, who's counting.

when you're working to get a job that involves being in great shape it isnt a privilege but a job requirement, I mean... you think everyone on the coaching staff would be ok of guys like Price and PK came into training cap in really bad shape ? be serious for a sec here...

I'm surprised you arent saying stuff like "life choice" when it comes to owners...