NHLPA tells us what (somewhat)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mothra

The Groovy Guru
Jul 16, 2002
7,717
2
Parts Unknown
Visit site
Icey said:
they wanted the cap rise towards the end of the CBA provided certain revenue provisions had been met. I don't think this is an unreasonable request. Its no different than you working year after year and never receiving a raise. You would probably tell your boss that is unreasonable if your company's revenues had been growing.

You dont think asking for the cap to rise with revenues but not go down with revenues is unreasonable? C'mon.....thats just not possible.

your "working year after year and not getting a raise" is a poor analogy...you are talking about indivdual salaries...individual players will get raises
 

guymez

The Seldom Seen Kid
Mar 3, 2004
32,644
12,154
Icey said:
they wanted the cap rise towards the end of the CBA provided certain revenue provisions had been met. I don't think this is an unreasonable request. Its no different than you working year after year and never receiving a raise. You would probably tell your boss that is unreasonable if your company's revenues had been growing.

The players need to decide if they are going to be a partner with the NHL or an employee. They say that they want a partnership. Their actions indicate they want to be able to have the best of both worlds.
 
Last edited:

NYFAN

Registered User
Jul 8, 2004
361
0
Long Island
guymez said:
The players need to decide if they are going to be a partner with the NHL or an employee. They say that they want a partnership. Their actions indicate they want to be able to have the best of both worlds.
Are you willing to take a pay cut if your boss mismanages the company? I'm not, I simply will do without a raise that year! I'm no negotiator, but I'm pretty sure that if the league was willing to negotiate a 42 million dollar cap, they could afford more wether they admit it or not. No ones boss gives them the maximum they are capable of. Its the nature of business.
 

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
Newsguyone said:
My reasoning is like this.
I some teams are willing to spend $78 Million, and other times are struggling to break even at $21 Million, you've got a major problem.

I can't believe you people still don't see the value of a strong luxury tax.

I can't believe you people don't see the owners' greed for what it is.

The owners won't be greedy unless they ask for a return on equity that's over what the type of risk they're engaged for. This will probably be close to 10%. Hence, if they put $200M in equity for the team, they are entitled to make $20M/year without being greedy.

Now, from what I've seen, I don't think they'll get more than the fair return on investment they are indulged to with any of the propositions they've made so far.

Besides, if the owners would rather reject a proposition and let the hockey die not playing, I think that tells us pretty clearly the offer wasn't good enough, regardless how close it can be to an offer already on the table.

Lastly, I hope the Pro-PA players will be able to get some sleep next year when the best owner's offer is about a cap of $35M and they reject players proposals at $40M...
 

Icey

Registered User
Jan 23, 2005
591
0
guymez said:
The players need to decide if they are going to be a partner with the NHL or an employee. They say that they want a partnership. Their actions indicate they want to be able to have the best of both worlds.

Well I think that question was answered in a previous negotiating session when the NHL told them that they were employees. They were no different than the auto workers union in Detroit. They are simply employees.

So if the NHL views them as employess, what is the problem??

But in reality they are not employees they are the product and that is where the problem lies.

That's fair, but what's unfair is the PA's insistence of making it a one-way street. In most work settings, an increase in company revenues means salaries will rise. On the other hand, a dip in company revenues usually means layoffs and pay cuts. The PA seems to want to reap the rewards when the NHL succeeds, but want to no part in sharing the risk if/when things take a downturn.

Frankly, after months of strident anti-linkage rhetoric, it's an exceptionally hypocritical stance for them to take.

Not necessarily true. A dip in company sales doesn't necessarily mean you are being laid off. Perhaps it means cutting back on expenses. Perhaps you need to stay at cheaper hotels when you travel, entertainment costs go down, only necessary office supplies are ordered, you make do with that old copier for another year.

There are plenty of places for the NHL to cut player costs if they wanted to. Do they really need to be staying at the Ritz Carlton when they travel? Are charter flights necessary? Why is the NHL paying to fly the players and their families home to the summer home and then back again in the fall? Does your company pay for your summer vacation travel?

The real problem is the still the same one from a year ago. The players don't trust the owners not to screw them over and the owners don't trust themselves, each other or the players. Until that problem is some how addressed, this mess will continue for years to come, which is really quite sad.
 
Last edited:

Beukeboom Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
15,391
1,189
Chicago, IL
Visit site
Newsguyone said:
No dude, you listen.
You keep making unsubstantiated claims.
You don't know the numbes involved. You act like they can't be negotiated in a fair manner.
You act like there's NO WAY to negotiate a modest increase in the cap as revenues increase.

It's nonsense.
The pro-players side continually ignores the fact that this is NEGOTIATION.
I keep hearing things like, well, if we the owners don't get exactly what they want, we're right back in the same situation. Irregardless of facts, or numbers. I hear this.
I continually here pro-owner people state that a $45 Million cap would kill the league. Yet they can never, when challenged, explain how that $2.5 million difference in the cap is going to ruin the league.
Now, because the players want assurances that salaries go up, you guys are crying "sky is falling"
I've got news for you, bud.
Just about every union in the world negotiates increases in contract, even if they settle for concessions in year 1.
Just about every union asks for 1.5 percent increases plus other COST OF LIVING (Inflationary) raises.
It's standard.
Is that what the NHLPA is asking? WHo knows?
But It's absurd to suggest that some kind of program to increase the cap would put the game "right where it was" Because it would take years and years and years to get the NHL back to $78 million payrolls.
These are points that can be negotiated.
If you want to protect the small market teams, then you find a way to tie the increase to the fortunes of the smaller market teams.
You can negotiate these things.

That is, of course, if you are even seeking solution.

I don't think I've made any unsubsantiated claims. I posted my assumptions around how the lockout is going to impact the league, and how the PA wanted to index the payrolls based on 2005-06 salaries. The fact is that no one here knows what the players were asking for in the growth of the cap number. I assumed what the players originally proposed, and you seem to have assumed that they have asked for something at a MUCH lower level, but the owners still wouldn't negotiate. Who do you think has made a more reasonable assumption?

And "bud", the reason that union salaries can go up, is that workers become more productive. If the league does not become more popular (and thus generate more revenue), the workers aren't being more productive.

I have NEVER stated the league can't afford a $45M cap. I stated that my point is that the owners and PA have SERIOUS difference in the details of their cap proposals, and that is what is keeping a deal from getting done. When both Linden and Saskin say the meeting started and ended with the owners going into detail about their original offer, I take that to mean that the PA thought they were close based on the $ difference. I would think that owners very possibly might take a $45M cap, and it could be succussful. But again, I come back to what the players originally proposed (and we have not heard anything different, so I think that's the best assumption to make - not some other union averages you're quoting) which is a deal killer from the owners POV. Again, please let me know how my math or assumptions are incorrect based on the players original proposal.
 

ladybugblue

Registered User
May 5, 2004
2,427
0
Edmonton, AB
shveik said:
Since the NHL keeps saying that the revenues are going to drop, it should not be a problem for the league to accept this clause.

I don't think it is so much that but the language of Clause 7 indicates that the 2005/06 year would be the base and the percentage increase from this point would be the percentage increase of the cap. Now I think we all agree the revenues will be down next year for sure but should eventually increase again...but I don't want to see a cap of $65 million in only two or three years. Maybe I am not interpreting it correctly but if this is the case all small market teams would be in the same boat if not worse than they are now.
 

Flonaldo

Registered User
Newsguyone said:
Just about every union in the world negotiates increases in contract, even if they settle for concessions in year 1.
Just about every union asks for 1.5 percent increases plus other COST OF LIVING (Inflationary) raises.
It's standard.
Is that what the NHLPA is asking? WHo knows?
You do understand that your analogies are pretty ridicilous, yes?

The NHLPA was asking for something (in article 7) that most probably would have landed in the double digits per year. Not 1.5 percent, in fact not anywhere near it.

You make it sound like that would be no big deal. A 70M$ cap in year 5 would be a friggin big deal. We're not talking about inflationary raises, we're talking about something that would completely change the nature of the CBA.

The NHLPA listed the indexing in their latest release as point 1 of contention, so it seems that it's a big point for them. So do you still think they're looking for 1.5% / year or the 10% that they proposed earlier? To go from 10 to 1.5 in a couple of days on one of your major issues sounds like something I don't believe the NHLPA would do.
 

guymez

The Seldom Seen Kid
Mar 3, 2004
32,644
12,154
NYFAN said:
Are you willing to take a pay cut if your boss mismanages the company? I'm not, I simply will do without a raise that year! I'm no negotiator, but I'm pretty sure that if the league was willing to negotiate a 42 million dollar cap, they could afford more wether they admit it or not. No ones boss gives them the maximum they are capable of. Its the nature of business.

Well I am no negotiater either, but how can the NHLPA claim to know what the league can afford? They refuse to review any audits (Levitt), or audit the books themselves. They claim ...'they know'. Well... what is it they know, when they refuse to look?
So, the players have this union 'sense of entitlement' loosely based on theories instead of facts. It's the NHL owners who risked their money, so they should have the right to set the terms of employment. If these players think that the NHL's terms are so unfair, go play somewhere else. Truth is they are more than fair, even at 30-35 million. A quick review of what some players ( in alternative leagues) are making in Europe, should drive that point home.
Unfortunately, the NHLPA has been very successful in convincing the players that they are not employees, but business partners with the NHL, and as such, have a 'right' to their share of the revenues. If they were a true business partner they should be willing to shoulder both sides of the financial equation, and not just share in the windfalls. It is also interesting how the players call themselves a partner when they have not ventured any of their own finances. :shakehead
This union has to go.
 

NYFAN

Registered User
Jul 8, 2004
361
0
Long Island
guymez said:
Well I am no negotiater either, but how can the NHLPA claim to know what the league can afford? They refuse to review any audits (Levitt), or audit the books themselves. They claim ...'they know'. Well... what is it they know, when they refuse to look?
So, the players have this union 'sense of entitlement' loosely based on theories instead of facts. It's the NHL owners who risked their money, so they should have the right to set the terms of employment. If these players think that the NHL's terms are so unfair, go play somewhere else. Truth is they are more than fair, even at 30-35 million. A quick review of what some players ( in alternative leagues) are making in Europe, should drive that point home.
Unfortunately, the NHLPA has been very successful in convincing the players that they are not employees, but business partners with the NHL, and as such, have a 'right' to their share of the revenues. If they were a true business partner they should be willing to shoulder both sides of the financial equation, and not just share in the windfalls. It is also interesting how the players call themselves a partner when they have not ventured any of their own finances. :shakehead
This union has to go.
Leavitt report, not audit. Was definitely skewed toward ownership. At a cost of 1 million dollars. Did you think it wouldn't say what Bettman wanted it to say? Why did he go and hire Arthur Leavitt, after the league had already looked at 4 teams books with the union ? Maybe because he wasn't getting the scenario he thought he would when that occured ? Having said that, I think they made a mistake not delving into those books, although I would guess there is alot of false information in them if they claim the Rangers lost 40 million!
 

Greschner4

Registered User
Jan 21, 2005
871
222
Flonaldo said:
You do understand that your analogies are pretty ridicilous, yes?

The NHLPA was asking for something (in article 7) that most probably would have landed in the double digits per year. Not 1.5 percent, in fact not anywhere near it.

You make it sound like that would be no big deal. A 70M$ cap in year 5 would be a friggin big deal. We're not talking about inflationary raises, we're talking about something that would completely change the nature of the CBA.

The NHLPA listed the indexing in their latest release as point 1 of contention, so it seems that it's a big point for them. So do you still think they're looking for 1.5% / year or the 10% that they proposed earlier? To go from 10 to 1.5 in a couple of days on one of your major issues sounds like something I don't believe the NHLPA would do.

If the PA brought clause 7 to the table unchanged yesterday, they deserve to have their "union" busted to shambles.
 

shveik

Registered User
Jul 6, 2002
2,852
0
Visit site
me2 said:
Because they want to get paid. No cap, no job, no pay, their choice.



If there is no difference then the NHLPA should just sign on and be done with it. :dunno:

The league more or less has monopoly here, no other league can employ that many players and pay them so much. I have no doubt that NHL can eventually force the players to accept a 10 million cap. But depending on the players stubborness/pride it may take a 5 year hockey shutdown. Is it worth it for the owners, considering that if you beleive what they are saying it is a non-issue for them? Is it worth it for them to cancel the season over?

Anyway, this is just basic negoatiating stuff. What's releveant for this if the players were asking for 03/04 or 05/06 season to be used as index. That would clearly show who wasn't interested in making a deal - the players or the owners.
 

Greschner4

Registered User
Jan 21, 2005
871
222
ladybugblue said:
I don't think it is so much that but the language of Clause 7 indicates that the 2005/06 year would be the base and the percentage increase from this point would be the percentage increase of the cap. Now I think we all agree the revenues will be down next year for sure but should eventually increase again...but I don't want to see a cap of $65 million in only two or three years. Maybe I am not interpreting it correctly but if this is the case all small market teams would be in the same boat if not worse than they are now.

Clause 7 made it very possible, maybe likely, that the cap would be way higher than even $65. It was a joke clause.
 

guymez

The Seldom Seen Kid
Mar 3, 2004
32,644
12,154
NYFAN said:
Leavitt report, not audit. Was definitely skewed toward ownership. At a cost of 1 million dollars. Did you think it wouldn't say what Bettman wanted it to say? Why did he go and hire Arthur Leavitt, after the league had already looked at 4 teams books with the union ? Maybe because he wasn't getting the scenario he thought he would when that occured ? Having said that, I think they made a mistake not delving into those books, although I would guess there is alot of false information in them if they claim the Rangers lost 40 million!
Your splitting hairs insisting the report wasn't an audit. IIRC it had a broad scope, but focused on revenue reporting. The point is maybe the NHLPA should do some groundwork (with the NHL or on their own) so they can base their postion on facts ...not rhetoric.
 

NYFAN

Registered User
Jul 8, 2004
361
0
Long Island
guymez said:
Your splitting hairs insisting the report wasn't an audit. IIRC it had a broad scope, but focused on revenue reporting. The point is maybe the NHLPA should do some groundwork (with the NHL or on their own) so they can base their postion on facts ...not rhetoric.



Audit: Commissioner Gary Bettman and NHL owners spent $1 million for an "audit" of league finances by Wall Street icon Arthur Levitt. Relying on Levitt's "audit," owners claimed losses of $273 million in the 2002-03 season and another $223 million last season. The Levitt "audit" actually is a review of league finances. It lacks the certifications of a typical corporate audit, and it fails to document income from luxury boxes, club seats, arena advertising and naming rights. Instead of resolving financial issues, it has added new issues and added to player suspicion. (See also entry for "Trust.")

Having posted that, I also agree like I did before, that the PA should have looked at the books. If nothing else, they should have established their opposition to the report AFTER a review. It still wouldn't have the numbers they were looking for, but it could not have been thrown out there that they were afraid of the numbers. A gross miscalculation in the publicity department by Goodenow!
 

guymez

The Seldom Seen Kid
Mar 3, 2004
32,644
12,154
NYFAN said:
Audit: Commissioner Gary Bettman and NHL owners spent $1 million for an "audit" of league finances by Wall Street icon Arthur Levitt. Relying on Levitt's "audit," owners claimed losses of $273 million in the 2002-03 season and another $223 million last season. The Levitt "audit" actually is a review of league finances. It lacks the certifications of a typical corporate audit, and it fails to document income from luxury boxes, club seats, arena advertising and naming rights. Instead of resolving financial issues, it has added new issues and added to player suspicion. (See also entry for "Trust.")


Source??? Link???

Seeing as you felt it necessary to beat the "its a report not an audit" thing to death (in this and other threads), this might interest you.


Lynn E. Turner is the managing director of the Denver office of Glass Lewis & Co., a financial analytical research firm, and a former accounting professor at Colorado State University. Turner is the former chief accountant of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and one of the chief authors of the Levitt Report.

Turner acknowledged the Levitt Report is not an official audit, because it was not a signed opinion by a CPA and was headed by a man, former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt, who is not a registered CPA. But Turner said it was better than an actual audit.

"If you look at the procedures set forth in great detail in the report that were employed, you will see it is pretty much the same as what would be done in any audit," Turner said. "The work and procedures that were done represent the most comprehensive examination of any sports leagues' operations and financial results, ever."


http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~84~2716041,00.html
 

Beukeboom Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
15,391
1,189
Chicago, IL
Visit site
NYFAN said:
Why did he go and hire Arthur Leavitt, after the league had already looked at 4 teams books with the union ?

Not sure if you were aware of this, but Arthur Leavitt has a reputation for integrity as the ex-chairman of the SEC, and the thought that he could be "bought" by Bettman is absolutely ridiculous.

The players don't want to know about the actual financial standing of the league, because they don't care. They are much like the Steelworkers unions in the 70's. They didn't care as long as the checks were coming. And much like those steelworkers who refused to face reality, a bunch of them ended up not collecting a paycheck either.
 

Phanuthier*

Guest
NataSatan666 said:
If you can't spend 30 million on a professional leagues payroll...then maybe you should be hosting AHL games
Uhh... you do realize that the AHL is a professional league, NataSatan?
 

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
guymez said:
Lynn E. Turner is the managing director of the Denver office of Glass Lewis & Co., a financial analytical research firm, and a former accounting professor at Colorado State University. Turner is the former chief accountant of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and one of the chief authors of the Levitt Report.

Turner acknowledged the Levitt Report is not an official audit, because it was not a signed opinion by a CPA and was headed by a man, former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt, who is not a registered CPA. But Turner said it was better than an actual audit.

"If you look at the procedures set forth in great detail in the report that were employed, you will see it is pretty much the same as what would be done in any audit," Turner said. "The work and procedures that were done represent the most comprehensive examination of any sports leagues' operations and financial results, ever."

You see... it lacks certification!! :shakehead

The people that worked on this were paid to say what the NHL wants. :shakehead

They were not qualified at all, let's trust Forbes tea reading skills instead... :shakehead
 

Phanuthier*

Guest
Newsguyone said:
The pro-owner side is riddled with ideologues who have become separated from reality.
And only the pro-player side understands, right? :propeller

Yet another gem, Newsguyone.
 

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
NataSatan666 said:
If you can't spend 30 million on a professional leagues payroll...then maybe you should be hosting AHL games

Please point me another league than the NHL where the average team payroll is higher than $15M...
 

Phanuthier*

Guest
Newsguyone said:
I can't believe you people still don't see the value of a strong luxury tax.

I can't believe you people don't see the owners' greed for what it is.
You mean like the MLB luxury tax?

Because you do realize that earlier on, the NHL proposed a luxury tax system that the PA blew off as a "hard cap in disguise" right?

Yeah, the owners are very greedy because they don't want to lose $6 million a season... :propeller
 

Phanuthier*

Guest
Newsguyone said:
You keep making unsubstantiated claims.
You don't know the numbes involved. You act like they can't be negotiated in a fair manner.
You act like there's NO WAY to negotiate a modest increase in the cap as revenues increase.
... and you think you do? :amazed:
 

Phanuthier*

Guest
Newsguyone said:
The pro-players side continually ignores the fact that this is NEGOTIATION.
I keep hearing things like, well, if we the owners don't get exactly what they want, we're right back in the same situation. Irregardless of facts, or numbers. I hear this.
I continually here pro-owner people state that a $45 Million cap would kill the league. Yet they can never, when challenged, explain how that $2.5 million difference in the cap is going to ruin the league.
Now, because the players want assurances that salaries go up, you guys are crying "sky is falling"
I've got news for you, bud.
Just about every union in the world negotiates increases in contract, even if they settle for concessions in year 1.
Just about every union asks for 1.5 percent increases plus other COST OF LIVING (Inflationary) raises.
It's standard.
Is that what the NHLPA is asking? WHo knows?
But It's absurd to suggest that some kind of program to increase the cap would put the game "right where it was" Because it would take years and years and years to get the NHL back to $78 million payrolls.
These are points that can be negotiated.
If you want to protect the small market teams, then you find a way to tie the increase to the fortunes of the smaller market teams.
You can negotiate these things.
Wow, what a rather silly post.

Once again, since you conviniently ignore it every single time, if 2.5 million or 6.5 isn't such a big deal, why don't the players forfeit that value to the owners and sign the deal? Obviously, there is some significance there for both the owners and players to fight over. Your failure to grasp ahold of that is astounding.

Simply put, to answere your question that you pose every single time (and ignore every single time) 42.5 million is their breaking point. Its already been said that a few teams, including the Flames, would deal with loses with that figure, but it would be within bearable range. It's expected that with that figure, a 42.5 million cap, the Flames will stay at a 37-38 million payroll and lose about 6-7 million a year. Thats more then we should expect as fans.

Tell me Newsguyone, for some radical reason, you think 2.5 million is a small sum. If that isn't such a big deal to you, then why don't you fork over 2.5 million to the Calgary Flames, Edmonton Oilers or Nashville Predators? Forget 2.5 million, would be even willing to fork over 20 bucks? I'll bet not.

Owners should not be expected to cope with the grand loses they've been dealing with now. We don't wipe our ass's with $20 bills, so we don't expect the owners to throw away money like that either. In some cases like Edmonton, many of their players make more then the owners do! Tell me one other business where the employee makes more then its employers do over a consistant basis? Please Newguyone, I'm dying to hear that one.

How big is a couple hundread thousand? Well to put things into prospective, Calgary Flames GM Darryl Sutter had to go to ownership and request to add another $275,000 to their budget to acquire Mikka Kiprusoff. Does that tell you how big of a deal $2.5 million is?

To furthur that point, yes I know not all teams will spend that number. However, what it will do is drive up the medium markets to hit the cap like a magnet. The scale wiill be small, but when 15-20 teams start to hit that cap target, it'll set the bar higher for teams like the Flames and Oilers to sign their players by. Thus, while the larger markets and those around the cap affect smaller teams by driving salaries up when the bar is raised. (Once again, this doesn't have to be on a grand scale, as showed above, how much setting the bar a little higher affects teams like the Flames in the Mikka Kiprusoff case.)

As for linkage... yes I understand almost every single job requires a pay raise as inflation increases. However, since you ignored this time and time again, why does the PA ONLY want it to benefit them?
 

Mothra

The Groovy Guru
Jul 16, 2002
7,717
2
Parts Unknown
Visit site
NYFAN said:
Are you willing to take a pay cut if your boss mismanages the company? I'm not, I simply will do without a raise that year! I'm no negotiator, but I'm pretty sure that if the league was willing to negotiate a 42 million dollar cap, they could afford more wether they admit it or not. No ones boss gives them the maximum they are capable of. Its the nature of business.

Another terrible analogy......you see, if your boss mismanages money....or is just losing it for whatever reason....he can let you go and you are off the books.....so how does what you say apply?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->