Owners considering a new league...

[Puckhead]

not saying any team should have to be forced to break up because of a cap, i'd hope there'd be some kind of a)franchise player exemption one or two players at most, or b) exemption for longevity w/ the club

As ridiculous as it may sound, the players have to realize that if they absolutely do not want a cap, then they should expect to have no more guaranteed contracts. If they have a bad year, the team can walk away, or pay them according to their output. We all know that this arbitration thing is a total crock. They need to find a better way to judge what a player should get as a raise, and what better way then to make all contracts made up of incentives. # of games played, goals scored, assists, PP pts, ice time, hits, blocked shots, etc...Give all of these NHL lawyers something to do. The days of Lapointe having a decent year and then getting 5 years and 25 million dollars have to go, I realize that it is not the players who are having the brain cramps, and if someone offered me that money, I would sign it right away, but they need to come with a system whereby before a team signs a player they should have to clear it with a non biased opinion like arbitration should be, and that way maybe someone can slip a reality pill to the prospective GM and stop him before he makes a mistake that then throws the whole value system in the league out the window. I do not begruddge the players anything, and I do think the owners are to blame for what is going on in the NHL, but the only way to fix it is to find a way to work together, and if you look at the other pro sports like Basketball and Football, it really works.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Players take pay cuts all the time? I think yoiu should get your facts straight! If they always take pay cuts, explain to all of us why they bother with arbitration, and why they bother to hold out? When it is a proven FACT that by holding out the salary they lose is never made up anyway. Not to mention the FACT that they rarely have a decent year, let alone a good one. The demented part of your name sure fits!

i didnt say ALL players take paycuts... i said players in the NHL take pay cuts.

and when the get raises, its because the owners have CHOSEN to give it.

leave the insults out of it.

dr

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

As ridiculous as it may sound, the players have to realize that if they absolutely do not want a cap, then they should expect to have no more guaranteed contracts. If they have a bad year, the team can walk away, or pay them according to their output. We all know that this arbitration thing is a total crock. They need to find a better way to judge what a player should get as a raise, and what better way then to make all contracts made up of incentives. # of games played, goals scored, assists, PP pts, ice time, hits, blocked shots, etc...Give all of these NHL lawyers something to do. The days of Lapointe having a decent year and then getting 5 years and 25 million dollars have to go, I realize that it is not the players who are having the brain cramps, and if someone offered me that money, I would sign it right away, but they need to come with a system whereby before a team signs a player they should have to clear it with a non biased opinion like arbitration should be, and that way maybe someone can slip a reality pill to the prospective GM and stop him before he makes a mistake that then throws the whole value system in the league out the window. I do not begruddge the players anything, and I do think the owners are to blame for what is going on in the NHL, but the only way to fix it is to find a way to work together, and if you look at the other pro sports like Basketball and Football, it really works.

i agree .. if the players are going to make "salary cap" their battle, they will have to negotiate other areas.

-arbitration
-buyouts
-qualifying offers

these are three. one other area the owners should try and negotiate is an extra round of playoffs. say a wild card best of 5 round for 4 more teams. this gives the owners another source of revenue without having to pay the players. hey, if the players want to make the money, its going to be on their backs. fact is, if the owners could generate income by making the players play 500 games a season, then so be it. 500 is obviously an exageration, but if the owners truly are losing money and the players truly will not budget on the salary cap, there has to be another way to skin the cat.

dr

 

[Russian Fan]

i find this to be oxymoronish....and yes i knwo that aint a word, but if they didn't care what they were paid then they wouldn't care if it was within a cap or not, plain and simple the players must care what they get paid or they woudln't be so against a cap being put in place.. while the players may not care if they get 4 mil or 8 mil...they DO care what they get paid

and you answer to this will most likely be somewhere around the area of "it's a players right to get paid for what he brings in'' and you'll also argue that it's the owners fault if they pay the player more than they really wanted to keep that certain player, but that's a catch 22, said player said he wants a larger salary than what he's been offered, note: said player is a premier player in the league, should the owners cave and give him x million more than what they wanted they stand a chance of losing money becuase they went outside their budget... if they don't re'sign him and he becomes UFA they lose him for nothing, OR they make a trade such as the Weight to STL deal, yet they stand a chance at losing money as well.. w/ said player off team there's the possibility that you won't make it as far in the playoffs, if you even get there, however w/ said player on the team you'd be pretty much a lock for a playoff spot

all the above counts for possible lost revenue, not to mention letting a premier player go, who in most cases would be a fan fav... could dicourage fans and alienate them, also counting in lost revenue... it's cause and effect when you sign anyone to any contract, if the potential effect is great enough to make an owner pay the extra and go over budget a little, then obviously he'd be a fool to not sign and have a negative effect be blanketed over his team, i think i've rambled on enough for right now

The problem with that Garry is not that they don't care being paid or not, they just want to be a free market.

Let me explain myself. Let's suppose you put a CAP & miraculously the NHLPA accept.

Year 1 : we see a decrease of salary of 10% & now 22 teams out of 30 teams are making profit.

Year 5 : we see a stabilization of salary but the REVENUE GOES UP & now all 30 NHL FRANCHISE are making money & they make money more & more each year after that.

I know you probably like so many other will say, THE HELL with players they make 2 millions a year they shouldn't cry about the owner making 20-30 millions a year.

The players no matter what will never get sympathy of the fans because of envy.

 

[ALF AmericanLionsFan]

It's the owners fault anyway. There the ones forking over all this cash that has put them in this situation.

 

[KH1]

So the owners form their own new league and the players form their own new league. Which one has more appeal, the one whose biggest feature is that is owned by the same people who owned the NHL or the one whose biggest feature is that its players are the ones who played in the NHL?

Let them both start their own leagues. It would be the best thing for the fans to have two competitive major pro hockey leagues.

Question: Who would pay the players in their new league? It seems to me like if there were billionaires lining up to buy NHL teams than there wouldn't be financial problems in the first place.

Maybe they'll work for free :lol

 

[ErnestoGuevara]

Question: Who would pay the players in their new league? It seems to me like if there were billionaires lining up to buy NHL teams than there wouldn't be financial problems in the first place.

Maybe they'll work for free :lol

A communist league...

 

[NYIsles1*]

im confused ... if the players dont agree to a hard cap, the owners will in turn spend foolishly ?

how can they cry poor, but then turn around and spend like drunken sailors. the fact is, they will spend BECAUSE of 2 reasons

1) they can afford to
and / or
2) the choose to

what a messed up argument you are making.

You forgot choice #3 which is why the league is where it is.

A few owners choose to think only of themselves.

All 30 owners at this time are speaking thru Bettman and everyone is holding the party line. That does not mean they are all on the same page with this after a new cba comes into play. We are where we are today because of the owners, they created this market and it is messed up. We will find out which owners in this group will not want a 31 million dolllar hardcap at some point and are willing to compromise that to keep their spending advantage to make up for poor hockey management abilities with their franchises.

And your right.
1. Some teams can afford to lose some more money than other teams.
2. Those teams are willing to make the choice and take a larger loss for a chance to win.

Every year it's the same two or three owners every year driving up the market for the other teams. Philadelphia, Detroit and the Rangers claim to lose money operating their franchises or claim to have to make the finals to break even. If there is no cap they will continue to do the same and the player agents know this and are counting on it.

 

[ErnestoGuevara]

All 30 owners at this time are speaking thru Bettman and everyone is holding the party line. That does not mean they are all on the same page with this after a new cba comes into play. We are where we are today because of the owners, they created this market and it is messed up. We will find out which owners in this group will not want a 31 million dolllar hardcap at some point and are willing to compromise that to keep their spending advantage to make up for poor hockey management abilities with their franchises.

Yes and Bob Goodenow and Trevor Linden speak for the players... but there are some players who have different views and opinions, some even ready to accept a cap. So the PA is weak and the union the owner's are forming is also weak, it's obviously just a matter of who caves first.

 

[djhn579]

The problem with that Garry is not that they don't care being paid or not, they just want to be a free market.

Let me explain myself. Let's suppose you put a CAP & miraculously the NHLPA accept.

Year 1 : we see a decrease of salary of 10% & now 22 teams out of 30 teams are making profit.

Year 5 : we see a stabilization of salary but the REVENUE GOES UP & now all 30 NHL FRANCHISE are making money & they make money more & more each year after that.

I know you probably like so many other will say, THE HELL with players they make 2 millions a year they shouldn't cry about the owner making 20-30 millions a year.

The players no matter what will never get sympathy of the fans because of envy.

If the salary cap is tied to a percentage of revenue, the players share increases with the revenue increase...

 

[djhn579]

Not every player is Trevor Linden, I'm sure some of them actualy agree with a cap but won't go against what the union is saying. If the owners do form a new league and buy the team names from the NHL we might see some of these players sign with the new league....Brett Hull for example was considering the WHA but in the end signed with Phoenix, in the new league, Phoenix would have the same owner and same budget so they could probably sign Hull at the same salary, it would take one player and I bet you the rest of the core of the team would follow. Another example is Daniel Alfredsson who has been a Senator all of his career and took less than he would get on the open market to stay with the team, there's nothing that say he'll sign with the new leagues Senators and then influence the rest of the team to do so....then the players form a new union.

But even when they do form a new union, the CBA is already in place with a salary cap. It will be difficult do do away with that once it is in place unless the salary cap is set at a rediculously low percentage of revenue.

 

[ErnestoGuevara]

But even when they do form a new union, the CBA is already in place with a salary cap. It will be difficult do do away with that once it is in place unless the salary cap is set at a rediculously low percentage of revenue.

Yeah I was just saying that they would form a new union.... and they'd need to so the owners don't take abuse of them and make them play at ridiculously low salaries (like the NHL was in the '40).

 

[djhn579]

Yeah I was just saying that they would form a new union.... and they'd need to so the owners don't take abuse of them and make them play at ridiculously low salaries (like the NHL was in the '40).

I've got no problem with that at all. I just wasn't sure where you were going...

 

[garry1221]

Ya, but only if the goal is to have a healthy, successful business

My proposal is that all teams have the same base salary budget - whatever it is - i.e. $45,000,000... That is a fixed cost for every team - a 'cap'... Teams can spend less if they want...

When certain player performance milestones are met, the individual player makes a % of revenue generated. I.e. if Naslund hits 40 goals - he receives x% of the Canucks revenue generated for the season (where the NHL determines what the percentage is - through CBA negotiations with the NHLPA)... These performance milestones are variable costs - and they could make players mega-rich (if Cooke, for example, got 40 goals next season he would make several million more than his 'base salary' - i.e. he is compensated fairly for his achievement... while NOT altering his contract and base salary for the following year - assuming he's signed a two year contract)... The higher the performance and the more money a franchise makes, the more money the player makes, and because it is a variable cost, what is paid out is directly tied to how much is coming in - It's not 'out-of-owner-pocket'... and if Naslund does not reach 40 goals - he is not paid like a 40 goal player would (i.e. his 'compensation' accurately depicts his achievement - his salary depicts what he has done for the Canucks in the past, and has the potential to accomplish - and his variable cost depicts what he has actually done)...

When certain team performance milestones are met, all players make a % of revenue generated. i.e. If the Canucks make the playoffs, the players get y% of revenue... if the Canucks get a 100 point season, the players get z% of revenue... etc. The more success a team has, the more money a franchise makes, the more money the player makes, the more money the owners make... everyone is happy...

Teams that make large profits (generate a lot of revenue) will still be in higher demand (as far as which teams the players want to play for) - as the potential is there for the players to make more (because of the variable 'compensation' costs - and higher revenues)... yet, there is cost certainty amongst the league at the same time...

With a system like this, an added benefit is that players will want to stay with (or go to) successful teams (i.e. successful teams will generate more revenue as they go farther in the playoffs, etc. - thus the players get compensated more because of the variable 'compensation')...

For example, Ottawa will NOT have a large threat of having to dismantle their team (an argument that I've read a few times here)...

IMO, this is salary cost certainty - a lower fixed cost that is certain and the same for all teams - and certain player and team milestone variable costs (% of generated revenue for the season - where the %s are the same for all teams)...

Good players will not want to stay with poorly run (or break even) teams as x% of 0 = 0... Therefore, good teams that generate large amounts of revenue are rewarded...

I don't see how a system like this would be bad for the owners, OR the players... In exchange for a lower fixed salary cost - I would negotiate a higher variable cost...

If the team is making money, this implies that the team is being successful, which implies that the players are doing a good job - therefore large amounts of money made all around...

If the team is not making money, this implies that the team is not being successful, which implies that the players are not doing a good job - therefore there is not a large amount of money all around... No one is happy or making a lot...

A system like this, IMO, is absolutely fair for both the players and the owners...

Tom? Demented Reality? Anyone? Tell me how this proposal, which incorporates a salary cap is NOT good for the players - as well as the NHL... Please point out what I am missing...

doesn't sound like a bad idea at all, didn't understand you fully the first time, a bunch on my mind earlier, but now that it's spelled out it aint too bad at all,

 

[thinkwild]

IMO, the owners spending NEEDS to be controlled...

I think this is the wrong use of market levers. Better and fairer is to make their spending ineffective in gaining an unfair advantage.

I don't see how a system like this would be bad for the owners, OR the players... In exchange for a lower fixed salary cost - I would negotiate a higher variable cost...

It sounds similar to one of the 6 proposals put forth by the owners. You make it sound a bit like the owners give the players stock options. Im not sure owners would agree to that particular percentage of revenue type bonus as an individual performance bonus.

Of course right now the biggest variable revenue is the playoff booty. And the variable cost of that now is very low. Its all gravy for the owner. .

Is the premise of players getting a percentage of the revenue that the problem is that when the owner negotiated his salary budgets he had no idea what his revenues would likely be? He was negotiating the salary based on the fact that all the games would be sold out at high prices and when attendance didnt max out, he lost money?

Perhaps since determining revenue by looking at the books of something designed to be a tax shelter is very misleading, they could use paid attendance as a proxy. If the teams collectively exceed 80% capacity attendance, all players get a bonus.


One of the problems with incentive based bonuses is that some great players never reached greatness until they found a 2-way game. Modano, Yzerman, Lecavalier. Performance bonuses would make them less of a team player which is so needed for success in the NHL.


Fans shouldnt want something that encourages selfishness in players for stats over team goals. It may be good for running a hockey pool where points are all that counts, but really we need role players sacrificing their stats for the team. Let the businessmen decide how much these are worth to them. They are smart enough to do it.

 

[I in the Eye]

It sounds similar to one of the 6 proposals put forth by the owners.

Well, that's the proposal that I support

You make it sound a bit like the owners give the players stock options. Im not sure owners would agree to that particular percentage of revenue type bonus as an individual performance bonus.

Not so much a player stock option... but tying 'player compensation' more to a variable cost (as actual player output is 'variable' from season to season) than to a fixed cost... IMO, a variable 'compensation' is more fair and reasonable - given that players cannot guarantee their output from year to year - because the player output is not guaranteed, IMO, neither should their compensation be guaranteed... For example, Naslund cannot absolutely guarantee that he will score 40 goals next season... If he only scores 15 goals next season - IMO, he shouldn't be compensated as if he did score 40 goals... Naslund gets paid a guaranteed high fixed salary (because of his contributions in the past, and his potential to score 40 goals) but the 'variable' compensation he receives is lower because he didn't actually produce the results for the season...

IMO, one of the most frustrating parts of being a business owner is having to pay employees a lot of money when they are not getting the results - or doing the job that they are paid to do... this frustration is compounded when there is another employee who is generating the results, yet he is not being compensated for it...

For example, say Cooke scores 40 goals next season... Because of his contributions in the past he does not have a very high fixed salary (when compared to Naslund's fixed salary)... Yet, he produced over and above expectations and scored 40 goals... IMO, Cooke should be rewarded for this actual output - for the season he scored the 40 goals in - Cooke should receive the compensation that a 40 goal scorer should receive... If from then on out, Cooke proves to be a 40 goal scorer, then the next time his contract is negotiated, his fixed cost salary goes up significantly... If that one 40 goal season was a fluke, not much changes as far as his fixed salary goes - yet he is still compensated fairly and recognized financially for the one 40 goal season that he did achieve...

Is the premise of players getting a percentage of the revenue that the problem is that when the owner negotiated his salary budgets he had no idea what his revenues would likely be? He was negotiating the salary based on the fact that all the games would be sold out at high prices and when attendance didnt max out, he lost money?

IMO, the premise is that the owner has no idea what the player output will be like from season to season... Right now, the owner is expected to guarantee a player high compensation, yet the owner has no guarantees if the player will actually produce the expected results season to season... While it is reasonable, IMO, for the owner to absorb some of the risk - and thus pay high quality players high fixed compensation - with the potential to pay the player high variable compensation... IMO, the players also have to absorb some of the risk - after all, the owner is putting faith in him (the individual player) to perform... IMO, it is only fair for the individual players to stand behind the quality of their talent... and thus, absorb some of the risk by accepting (in addition to a fixed compensation) a 'variable' compensation based on actual performance...

One of the problems with incentive based bonuses is that some great players never reached greatness until they found a 2-way game. Modano, Yzerman, Lecavalier. Performance bonuses would make them less of a team player which is so needed for success in the NHL.

First, I don't consider this an 'incentive based bonus'... but rather a 'variable compensation that rewards what the player accomplished for the season'... and I see the 'fixed' salary as a compensation that rewards what the player has accomplished in the past - and has the potential to accomplish before the season starts...

Performance bonuses would include more than just stats... For example, those three players you mentioned are captains... Team captains (and alternate captains) are team leaders - and thus would be subject to higher compensation - Also, if the player has been a captain for several years with the same team, this would reflect in his 'fixed' compensation - and a higher variable compensation (for example, team captains receive x% of revenue more for the same output that a regular player would receive)- as his importance to the team is presumably higher - given that he is a captain... Things like years with the team, roles the player plays in (i.e. penalty kill, shutdown center, etc.) would play into compensation more than just stats... IMO, it is necessary and imparative to reward 'roles' not just stats... and even with stats - things like '# of times on ice during a game winning goal' are very telling - and IMO, should also count when determining player compensation...

Fans shouldnt want something that encourages selfishness in players for stats over team goals. It may be good for running a hockey pool where points are all that counts, but really we need role players sacrificing their stats for the team.

Agreed... In fact, I would make 'team achievements' very high variable costs - that apply to all players on the team... After all, the higher the achievements, the more money the franchise makes, and thus, the more money available to pay to the players...

For example,

Assume Todd Bertuzzi's base salary is $5 million (fixed cost - just for being alive and a member of the Vancouver Canucks)... After the season, the Canucks achieved a hundred point season, made the 3rd round of the playoffs, and Bert scored 100 points while being a leader on the team... Bert's compensation for the year - $10 million... he deserves it, and the money is there to pay it to him - as the Canucks generated a lot of money...

Now assume after the season, the Canucks achieved a fifty point season, last in the NHL, and Bert scores 30 points while floating around the ice virtually every game... Bert's compensation for the year - $5 million... he deserves it, and the money is there to pay it to him - even though the Canucks didn't generate a lot of money for the season...

 

[thinkwild]

Right now, the owner is expected to guarantee a player high compensation, yet the owner has no guarantees if the player will actually produce the expected results season to season... While it is reasonable, IMO, for the owner to absorb some of the risk

Its reasonable for them to assume all of this risk. They are the risktaking capitalists. The players are the employees.

Im still a little fuzzy on the distinction you are making between a variable cost and performance bonus.

How will this variable cost be determined? Sounds like you are saying by a judgement of what its worth, except in terms of a % of revenues.

How is this overpaying for someone now, that you are referring to, manifesting itself? I know that in Ottawa for example, we had 28-29 yr old Bonk and Lalime coming due for $3-4mil contracts on the salary track we had them on. It was decided they werent worth it. We allowed their salaries to get ahead of their worth to us. We were paying them for performances that went undelivered.

Since they were RFA's, we had to continue qualifying them at this level. If only we knew for sure they would reject the qualifying offer, we could make it and be off the hook. We could just let them sit until someone gave us a good trade. But they likely wouldnt, so we walked. Got 3 and 4th round picks. We have a farm system, and young players that can shift to take new roles. No Sens fans are really crying too hard over these. We probably would of a few years ago, lamenting the injustice of it all , oh the humanity for us all poor small markets.

But now we know we can find good role players we need for that price on the UFA market, so if we are missing something we'll get it. We dont deserve to get compensation for the RFAs we allowed to become overpaid underachievers. And Im not sure we really feel threatened because some other team is willing to take them from us.


If they were UFAs that were no longer performing 2 years into a 5 year contract signed after they poached this player from another team not thinking he is worth it, I really dont see the problem or where sympathy is coming from.

Now assume after the season, the Canucks achieved a fifty point season, last in the NHL, and Bert scores 30 points while floating around the ice virtually every game... Bert's compensation for the year - $5 million... he deserves it, and the money is there to pay it to him - even though the Canucks didn't generate a lot of money for the season...

You'd be willing to pay $5mil for that? I think you would be better off trading Bertuzzi for the next Chara-Spezza before they are proven and go on a long term rebuilding program to develop a youthful core to get a team that can compete into a playoff spot and have a shot at growing into a champ. It may be a nice warn fuzzy to have the games elite powerforward playing cheaply on a develpoing team, but why would owners or players want to provide incentives for that unnatural event to occur.

 

[TBLightningFan]

Oh hell.... lets just have the owners put the financial system they want in place and use replacement players. (It wouldn't work but at least we would have some sort of Hockey.)

 

[StevenintheATL]

Well one rumor squashed about an NHL acquistion for a potential owner's league(at least for the time being):
WHA denies reports of sale to NHL

In a number of current NHL markets there are enough arenas in the area so that both an Owners League and an NHLPA-backed league could field teams. In some cases, they may have to play at oddball times because of other tenants (NBA, minor league hockey, AFL, ABA, for example). More than likely, it would be an NHLPA League that would probably end up at these secondary arenas if they choose to put their teams in current NHL markets. One example being the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale area. Office Depot Center (The Panthers' arena), American Airlines Arena, and Miami Arena. Another is the NYC metro area, with MSG, Continental Airlines Arena, and Nassau Colisseum.

 

[ginner classic]

Ya, it perhaps would be difficult to prove...

Just to be clear, I see the Petrolium company collusion example different from the NHL collusion example...

Petrolium companies are all separate businesses that are in the oil industry... If collusion exists, this is cross-industry price fixing...

In contrast, the team franchises all belong to the same business (the NHL)... I personally don't have a problem with the team franchises fixing salaries (as they all belong to the same business - in fact, this is both common and legal in the franchising business - and IMO, I think that the franchisee - the NHL - should probably be determining the NHL salaries based on the salaries in the overall free market 'professional hockey industry')... But I do have a problem with the NHL doing it secretly - if they agreed with the NHLPA a completely different arrangement... IMO, that's collusion and illegal... In this case, the NHL is not obligating their legal contract... In this case, the NHL is being deceptive in getting around their legal contract through a 'secret' agreement amongst the franchises - and that's illegal...

The phrase collusion can and should be applied to any instance where one group of people or organizations pool efforts or make agreements to disadvantage another group of people. The word is used when such an agreement is tacit or otherwise. Collusion DOES apply (and I think most historical instances have been so) when there is an oligopoly, or oligopolistic competition (a small number of large/powerful companies in a large industry). Banking, Oil and Gas, Transportation, and Communications are all very good examples.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Oh hell.... lets just have the owners put the financial system they want in place and use replacement players. (It wouldn't work but at least we would have some sort of Hockey.)

i believe the implications could include decertifing of the union which would eliminate the entry draft and allow all players to be unrestricted free agents.

as discussed in another thread, the owners NEED the union to keep the rules of hte league from being in anti trust.

something like that.

dr

 

[Puckhead]

i didnt say ALL players take paycuts... i said players in the NHL take pay cuts.

and when the get raises, its because the owners have CHOSEN to give it.

leave the insults out of it.

dr

You're right, there is no need for insults, I just got a little over the top there.

 

[Puckhead]

You forgot choice #3 which is why the league is where it is.

A few owners choose to think only of themselves.

All 30 owners at this time are speaking thru Bettman and everyone is holding the party line. That does not mean they are all on the same page with this after a new cba comes into play. We are where we are today because of the owners, they created this market and it is messed up. We will find out which owners in this group will not want a 31 million dolllar hardcap at some point and are willing to compromise that to keep their spending advantage to make up for poor hockey management abilities with their franchises.

And your right.
1. Some teams can afford to lose some more money than other teams.
2. Those teams are willing to make the choice and take a larger loss for a chance to win.

Every year it's the same two or three owners every year driving up the market for the other teams. Philadelphia, Detroit and the Rangers claim to lose money operating their franchises or claim to have to make the finals to break even. If there is no cap they will continue to do the same and the player agents know this and are counting on it.

I agree. If you look back at the last baseball strike, the owners basically caved, so that they wouldn't lose any more revenue, and the first thing to happen after the new agreement...Albert Belle gets signed to a ridiculous contract!!! Truth be told, I am not a baseball fan in the least, but I can see the same sort of thing happening in the NHL. They strike, possibly lose the year and the playoffs, then they make some headway, get some sort of deal in place and resume playing the following year, only to have some moron owner say to hell with the greater good of the game, I need to sign this guy and BAM! Back to square one. My point is this, if they are going to strike and lose the year, they had better get a great deal done before they come back. Could you imagine, they strike all season, and then nothing changes? That is too much for this hockey fan to take!

 

[I in the Eye]

The phrase collusion can and should be applied to any instance where one group of people or organizations pool efforts or make agreements to disadvantage another group of people. The word is used when such an agreement is tacit or otherwise. Collusion DOES apply (and I think most historical instances have been so) when there is an oligopoly, or oligopolistic competition (a small number of large/powerful companies in a large industry). Banking, Oil and Gas, Transportation, and Communications are all very good examples.

Agreed... I was pointing out that I consider the Oil example different from the NHL example (not exactly apples to apples) - as I consider the Oil example to be cross-industry collusion, whereas I consider the NHL example to be cross-franchise collusion... But both are examples of collusion...

I just wanted to be clear that I don't consider the NHL to be an industry - where the franchises are individual businesses operating in the 'NHL' industry - but rather the team franchises are simply that - franchises that operate under the NHL business (franchisee) that operates in the 'professional hockey industry'...

 

[JOHNBOY]