Misdirected blame?

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by Hab-a-maniac, Mar 29, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hab-a-maniac

    Hab-a-maniac Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    12,688
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    114
    Occupation:
    Hab-a-maniac
    Location:
    Toronto via Calgary!
    Home Page:
    On the whole, not just this mb, the PA and its members have taken a real beating for their stance. But my beef with this view is; honestly, what would it have taken for the PA to capitulate to save the season? I mean, they'd have to give up pretty much every leverage point to whatever the NHL wanted and let them be tossed around at the negotiation table. What union in any sport, let alone any job, would ever do this? This is why I feel the NHL is more to blame for the problems than the NHLPA. Sure, Goodenow is a snivelling lawyer jack@ss but what does that make Bettman, Karmanos, Wirtz, Jacobs, etc.? Look through the history of pro sports and labour in general and you'll see that those with money do whatever the hell they want with that power and only when real opposition arises do they have to give in. Even then, they try to get their way on everything. It's called capitalism. And it seems the NHL wants their capitalism (small-market owners limiting their own losses, big-market owners not sharing with others) and their communism (all teams are equal, all players can only make a certain amount, limitations on earning galore).

    Unfortunately, ever sport and business comes to this scenario eventually. I also think it's misguided to challenge the players heart and intensity as if it makes them wretched peoeple. Critics say they play the game half-assed, it's all about money, they dog it out there, they don't give back to the community. Sometimes this criticism comes from old timers. But they seem resentful of the situation because of the players' earnings. Heck, I'm sure there were NHL alumini who were resentful as heck toward guys getting huge contracts in the 70s such as Bobby Hull and Marcell Dionne. Difference now is that too many average players make substantial coin. Sure, pro hockey players get paid a lot for what they do but they have to work just as hard as joe schmo whose a garbage man. I sympathize somewhat when those folks say "I'm a garbageman, I work hard at my job and I don't make that kind of money. You don't see me complaining" (well that in itself is a complaint). But do 20,000 people show up to watch you and your co-workers compete in your job while wearing your team (and sometimes your individual) apparel while millions watch on TV and people talk about the events incessantly? No, so realize that hockey/sports is a job on a greater magnitude; it's entertainment.

    People who entertain get noticed and therefore deserve their money. Sure, not every competitor is going to go at it 100% but I've worked jobs where I see a lack of effort by people and they're getting paid the same as me!!! Well, they might not enjoy the job obviously. But maybe some hockey players get bored/upset with their job. It's a rough thing out there. Some guys can't handle being policemen, firefighters or paramedics for too long because of the toll those occupations can take. And there are jerks everywhere that no one in the general public will ever know about. But if those jerks are pro athletes, they'd better watch what they do and say because in that position, you've got be careful. The criticism you get comes with the territory in entertainment, especially sports. But when average people do criticize, they should try to understand it from other points of view rather than be selfish and deem it wrong as long as it offends you, screw all others! So it works the same in every day stuff as it does on a grander scale.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2005
  2. tritone

    tritone Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Messages:
    4,979
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    callcentrehell
    Location:
    Laval
    Home Page:
    "I'm a garbageman, I work hard at my job and I don't make that kind of money. You don't see me complaining" (well that in itself is a complaint). But do 20,000 people show up to watch you and your co-workers compete in your job while wearing your team (and sometimes your individual) apparel while millions watch on TV and people talk about the events incessantly? No, so realize that hockey/sports is a job on a greater magnitude; it's entertainment.

    And what do you think would happen if the garbage men stopped collecting garbage throughout North America for a year?
    Do you think the 20,000 people would care more or less about a hockey lock-out?
    BS argument
     
  3. lazaer

    lazaer Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    e-town
    Everyone agree's that garbage men are important, however his point was not what would happen if garbage men went on strike, goverments force us to pay for sanitary systems because of the benefits we get from them. Going to a hockey game is a conscious decision on how a person chooses to spend their money, so the two have nothing in common. His argument is vaild IMO because people do pay to watch elite players play the game. I don't think the PA would have had to give up "every leverage point" inorder to get a deal done, but they would have had to realize that there was no way they were going to win. Personally i think the PA has to bargain a system off what the NHL wants, that doesn't mean they have to give up everything it just means that the new system they agree on will be balanced for both sides. The players had 70 to 75 cents of every dollar, they had a system that the agents could exploit, they had arbitration, they had QO's of 110%, they had these things, but the players need to realize that they will not have them anymore. I don't think either side has bargained in good faith up to this point and i don't think either will anytime soon. I think the NHL will try to get replacement players, and that the PA will wait to see the reaction from the fans.
     
  4. Hab-a-maniac

    Hab-a-maniac Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    12,688
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    114
    Occupation:
    Hab-a-maniac
    Location:
    Toronto via Calgary!
    Home Page:
    Then again, if the PA gave the NHL the 49M cap offer in October, what would that have done to show people how the NHL was planning to crush the union? If I were Goodenow I would have gambled with that offer in December, promising my reps that the NHL will turn it down. Gutsy or stupid? Well, if Goodenow had been right, he'd certainly be in a more stable situation but instead he looks to be kicked out once this whole ordeal is over with. THe lack of communication and consensus has been disconcerting. And Lazaer got my point. People who hate the players for refusing so much money have to realize it's a business and for things like garbagement, the public's tax money goes into that. Players salaries and owners coiffers are a direct result of fans spending the cash which in turn encourages corporations to invest cash. The escelating prices and the increased corporate support have gone far enough to provide astronomical salaries. But ALL sports, without a cap it seems, end up outspending what they can support in the quest to win and gain star quality. And labour disputes arise, where the players side inevitably gets bashed. Heck, most people's natural instincts when teachers or post office workers or something go on strike or get locked out is to complain about the workers first.

    And, unfortunately, the players, though they are concerned with the problems, don't sit worrying about whether their biggest fans, or casual fans, are p!ssed at them or not. And same goes for owners. Both are preoccupied wondering how they will maintain their empires and that nice summer house in Florida. Though the lower-end players seem to be more fan appealing, it's because they want to play now and are more desperate so they let it be known. Imagine the discomfort of having a nice estate going for you, but the lack of pay in the NHL keeps you from paying your mortgages, setting up your kids' college funds and you're forced to sell your possessions or downgrading houses. They may end up needing loans. The higher up the pay scale, the less sorry I feel for the players/owners because they can have multiple houses at once and it's easier to sell mutliple residences as long as you have a nice place to live and can keep your prosperity together (as long as you're not an alcoholic-Probert/Fleury, druggie-Fleury/Probert, Daryll Strawberry or gambling addict-see Cecil Fielder, Pete Rose).

    No matter what they tell you, that, in the end, is what they're most in it for. I myself love hockey too much to stay away but when I go, I'll let it be known in cheers with other people how we feel about certain owners, comissioners, reps and players. They may be able to ban signs, but not people's words. I dislike the NHL as a business, the NHLPA as a business but respect the dedication involved in hockey and the tradition that goes into it. But it will never be so innocent again ever since both sides decided this battle was more important than the hallowed Stanley Cup.
     
  5. Hawker14

    Hawker14 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,085
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    84
    i don't know why the players get attacked here. oh yeah, it's a pro-owner's board !!!

    but no one can dispute the owners refuse to share all their revenues.

    and that's the problem regarding nhl economics. some of the richest owners own small market teams, and jeremy jacobs won't give money to craig leopold.

    if the nhl was serious about having all teams financially healthy, they'd share revenues. yet they don't.

    contract 10 teams if they can't compete financially under the last cba. contract 20 if neccesary. the salary cap as advocated by the nhl catering to the lowest common denominator approach just doesn't work.

    and the league filing a complaint with the nlrb is hilarious. internal union mechanisms are protected under the law to prevent "company unions".

    all i ask, is for someone to explain to me, how a system with:
    full revenue sharing among owners
    $ 45 million/team salary cap
    $ 30 million/team salary floor
    players become UFA once rookie contract expires

    would not work ?

    this labour dispute isn't about profits, losses, or parity. it's about one thing, increasing franchise values.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2005
  6. Steve L*

    Steve L* Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southampton, England
    Home Page:
    How about it wouldnt work because
    a) half the NHLPA would be out of a job
    b) Half the NHL owners would not be willing to give up their franchises and all the money spent on them.
     
  7. Taranis_24

    Taranis_24 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Messages:
    679
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    64
    Home Page:
    Hawker - To say this is a pro-owner MB is just wrong. It looks that way because by a large margin fans all across both nations back the owners on the lockout. I'm sure if it was reversed more posts would be backing the players. By and large the posters here a just very good hockey fans and a good percentage know the game really well.
     
  8. Levitate

    Levitate Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    25,448
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    154
    i'm not really sure a "large margin" of fans support the owners...perhaps, overall, the majority do support the owners, but it's hard to take such a blanket statement at face value. this board is just a small bit of all the hockey fans out there. even the polls taken are just a small bit of all the hockey fans out there (and I won't even get into biased sampling, etc) On other boards, people may be more pro-player, I post on at least one that is so. Plus a lot of people think that both sides are being unreasonable and don't necessarily support one side or the other.

    but I think Hab made a good post here...i don't expect many people to agree with it on this board but still

    I personally am not happy with either side and think both of them need to do better
     
  9. BLONG7

    BLONG7 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2002
    Messages:
    19,671
    Likes Received:
    1,288
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Home Page:
    most on this board are so called pro owner, because they are really fans of the league and fans of their TEAM...they want to see the league and all teams have some sort of financial success and for all teams to be able to keep their star players and not have Toronto,Philly,NYR,Colorado and company steal them away simply because they have more money...Revenue sharing is something that I think the league and the teams should look more closely at, but it is not the answer. If it was then once this mess is cleared up the stars on each team would have no problem with the team payroll being divided by the 23 man roster and everybody on the team gets the same pay...then there would be no one making 8M and no one making 800K, they would just revenue share and all make the same money, just like a real union... :sarcasm:
     
  10. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    The blame is being heaped where it belongs.

    On Goodenow for completely misreading the situation and failing to do his job; which is to get the best deal available.

    The players are being blamed for failing to replace Goodenow for the incompetent way he has handled this negotiation.

    The fans desire for a strong and healthy league are best satisfied if the owners score a knockout and bring the PA under control.
     
  11. Motown Beatdown

    Motown Beatdown Need a slump buster

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,572
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    Home Page:

    dont you mean bring the owners under control? Let's call a spade a spade, a salary cap is to prevent stupid owners from doing stupid things. They can't stop themselves from their mistakes so they need the help of the players. I can get that. If Bettman came out and said he needed a cap because he has a half a dozen owners who are fricken idiots and ruin the budgets of the rest of the NHL teams because of their foolish spending i'd be more than happy to support Bettman. But i guess it's easier to blame other than look in the mirror.
     
  12. dolfanar

    dolfanar Registered User

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    2,948
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Some see the glass as half-empty, some see the gla
    Location:
    Like a midget at a urinal, I'm going to have to st
    Home Page:
    I think that is a somewhat fair assessment. Even the most anti-PA can't deny that the owners are looking for protection from themselves. It's obviously much more complex than that, and there are factors beyond "stupid owners" (Things like collusion(owners can't, agents can), competition, etc....) but essentially that's what it comes down to.
     
  13. mooseOAK*

    mooseOAK* Guest

    The owners have to get some sort of return on their investment of millions of dollars that gives the players an environment where they have the potential to make millions of dollars.

    "players become UFA once rookie contract expires" would effectively kill this site. I wouldn't care about my team's prospects if I knew that they could be around 3 years and gone. Fan interest would wain as people wouldn't know who is playing for who any more, like baseball.

    I have not heard any owner state that they refuse to share revenues, where did you see that?
     
  14. Motown Beatdown

    Motown Beatdown Need a slump buster

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,572
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    Home Page:

    Have you ever heard the saying actions speak louder than words?

    11% revenue sharing. It's a joke compared to the other major sports. shouldn't the have help the have nots? I mean they are partners right?
     
  15. mooseOAK*

    mooseOAK* Guest

    I believe in revenue sharing but what is a good number?

    You can't compare with the NFL because that is TV revenue that was negotiated by the league that is being shared, Jerry Jones is not sending a nickel of his team's income to the less fortunate.
     
  16. Motown Beatdown

    Motown Beatdown Need a slump buster

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,572
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    Home Page:

    No thats wrong because the NFL also shares ticket revenue. Next?

    Your right the NHL doesn't have a huge National TV contract. But they have something the NFL doesn't have, 30 different TV contracts. Are you telling me the NHL cant share those? Or what about the radio contracts? Why cant they be shared either?
     
  17. Motown Beatdown

    Motown Beatdown Need a slump buster

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,572
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    Home Page:
    Speaking of revenue sharing, seems to me and the IRS the numbers reported are worse than we thought.

    There are significant differences in the relative amount of revenue shared in the different leagues. The NFL has the highest degree of revenue sharing with over 80 percent of league revenues shared. This is because the NFL derives most of its revenue from national media broadcasting contracts. On the other end of the scale, only 5.4 percent of league revenue is shared in the NHL. The NHL derives only a small portion of total revenue from its national media contracts, with the majority of its revenues obtained from gate receipts. The MLB and the NBA fall between these two extremes.

    http://www.irs.gov/businesses/page/0,,id=7095,00.html#RevShare
     

  18. And once the NHL gets a multi-billion dollar TV deal I think that sharing number will increase substantially. Until then, 11-15% is likely what can be expected.
     
  19. Motown Beatdown

    Motown Beatdown Need a slump buster

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,572
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    Home Page:

    Link?

    See thats your opinion. You have no proof behind your reasoning thats revenue sharing only works with TV contracts.

    You cant tell me NHL teams cant split ticket revenue 50/50?
     
  20. And why should they? Accordign to that IRS site the other professional leagues share primarily national broadcast revenues. Local revenues are considered local revenues. But lets not compare apples to oranges, lets compare apples to apples. What do other hockey leagues do? What is the competition doing in regards to revenue sharing? What is happening in Europe in this regard? The players don't have the option of going and playing in the NFL or the NBA. Their options are to play in Europe. What are those leagues doing in this regard?
     
  21. Volcanologist

    Volcanologist Used Register

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Messages:
    22,515
    Likes Received:
    330
    Trophy Points:
    199
    Location:
    Toronto
    People blame the players because it's the easiest thing to do.
     
  22. Motown Beatdown

    Motown Beatdown Need a slump buster

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,572
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    Home Page:

    Come on thats like saying just because everyone does it that way means the NHL has to do it that way? The NHL can be original when it comes to fixing their problems.

    As for what are the European clubs doing? I really dont know. Maybe some of the European posters will come in and let us know. But to my knowledge European teams dont claim to have lost over a billion dollars in the last decade.
     
  23. And why should they? That's only YOUR opinion that they should. Frankly if a market has done a really good job at growing their market they deserve the benefit of that. The money they spent in their local market to promote the game and get their fans excited about the product deserves the payoff.

    As well, how do you deal with ticket price discrepancies in this sharing plan of yours? I'm sure the Flyers would not be happy coughing up 50% of the gate to the Preds when they visit, knowing their tickets average $100, and then getting 50% of the gate in Nashville when their tickets average $50?
     
  24. mooseOAK*

    mooseOAK* Guest

    One third of the ticket revenue is pooled and distributed evenly. There may be a small advantage to some teams but it is hardly going to make a big difference to any one franchise. If a small market team is having a good season and a big market team a bad one, money may be flowing in the opposite direction.
     
  25. Not to get into it with you Mr Icon, cuz you love to rip dumb people like me to shreds, but you say if a market has done a good job it should reap the rewards, i agree, but it goes both ways. If a player has done a good job(as well as his agent) shoudlnt they reap the rewards? or it is only the owners that get the rewards? Also, whose job is it to grow the market? is it the players?
    so maybe these teams that are losing all this money should look at how they need to grow their markets.
    You always make good points Icon, but sometimes you say things that are contradictory as well as one sided.

    Ill wait for your shredding oh wise one
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"