Players dont want teams to have arbitration rights

Status
Not open for further replies.

PhillyNucksFan

Registered User
Dec 27, 2002
2,650
0
Philadelphia
Levitate said:
except the players aren't really employees of the owners. horrible simplification of the whole thing


How are they not employees of the owners?

Owners pay them to perform, to do a job for the owners?

Isnt that the basic employer/ee relationship?
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
Sammy said:
I know that. The problem is the process is by its very inflationary. The minset of the arbitrator is not what one should get paid, the mindset is one should get paid as much if not more than peers doing the same amount (who are in fact often horribly overpaid). Do you honestlt think an arbitrator is going to use a 30 goal scorer who is making 750k a year as a comprable (maybe that in these days ogf NHL economics is the right amount), no he's going to say that guy is grossly underpaid & I will use the 4.5 million 35 goal guy as the proper yardstick.

Of course not. He will use the marketplace as the yardstick, which is established in the process by the team and the player. If you want to say the marketplace itself is too much, fine, but that is a separate argument - and one that the PA agreed to deal with by rolling back salaries.

The fact that the marketplace for a 35-goal scorer might be $4m doesn't have anything to do with the inherent frailities or shortcomings of arbitration.

By definition negotiation is inflationary; arbitration is the exact same thing - it is meant to mirror negotiation and the dyanmic of negotiation using the established marketplace as a yardstick.

As I said before, who expects to be paid less year over year? It doesn't happen in any business absent extraordinary circumstances.
 

Sammy*

Guest
Jobu said:
Well, you're wrong. Completely. Arbitrators are not permitted to guess how a player will do in the future or disregard any performance over the course of the msot recently expired contract.

You are ignorant, so quit opining on the subject as all it serves to do is spread more untruths.
Grow up. Of course they are paying him on the basis of past performance. Common sense is that the supposition everybody works upon is that will continue into the future (why are you even arguing on that, its common sense) The problem is the past performance they use on the most recent & best.
Quit your :cry: :cry: or just leave the board.
 

PhillyNucksFan

Registered User
Dec 27, 2002
2,650
0
Philadelphia
Levitate said:
there's also no point in comparing the NHL and the player/owner relationship to "real world business"

it just doesn't work the same way...sports and salaries are a different beast than the whole regular employee/employer salary issues


They are based on the same economic concept and basic demand/supply theories. How is real world business models not comparable to the economics of the NHL?

As far as I am concerned, both are business entities tryinig to make some money here.

of course, this is the simplified version of the explanation for referencing purposes.
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
PhillyNucksFan said:
Oh, so, if the next year, he only scored 1/2 of his goal output at 25 goals, while still being at age of 25, (just for example), do the owners get to decrease his salary by half?!

Oh, so this is a 1 way ticket for owners, take it or leave it?

Please, if you do think that a manager who doubles the revenue output will get his salary doubled, or MORE than double, even in a free market (not a limited one like NHL, after all, there are only 30 teams), I highly doubt that. Why? Because there is no guarantee of the same revenue output the year after that.

Or, you can use some of the public company exec level people who did a great job with their former company and got their SALARY DOUBLED the next year by going to another company? (excluding stock options, as those are 1 time offers, during a specific window only) As far as I am concerned, I dont know any.

So why not sign the guy to a 1-year contract? If you do better at your job for one year than the next, does your employer get to reduce your salary? No, it likely gets increased.

The point is, a manager should be paid according to managers with the same experience and capability in the market. That's exactly the same as it should be in the NHL.
 

PhillyNucksFan

Registered User
Dec 27, 2002
2,650
0
Philadelphia
Sammy said:
Grow up. Of course they are paying him on the basis of past performance. Common sense is that the supposition everybody works upon is that will continue into the future (why are you even arguing on that, its common sense) The problem is the past performance they use on the most recent & best.
Quit your :cry: :cry: or just leave the board.


umm... whats the point of personal attacks?

Lets just keep this on topic?

I think this is a good discussion here.
 

Egil

Registered User
Mar 6, 2002
8,838
1
Visit site
To eleborate on what Jobu is saying, their are 2 problems with arbitration as it currently stands. The MAJOR problem is the ability of players to cherry pick which cases go to arbitration, which allows them to always "win". Giving the owners the same ability would make the system much more neutral, as opposed to its current inflationary state.

The other problem is the lack of "hockey" knowledge of the arbitrators. Currently, they are legal people, who look pretty much entirely at the stats of a player, compare it to other players stats (and their contracts), and arive at an award. Players who do nothing but score goals get extremely well rewarded, whereas the great checker, not so much. If you get hockey guys into the arbitrator position (either people who are approved by each side or a panel of 3 arbitrators, with 1 from each side and a neutral legal type to break any deadlocks), then more reasonable player evaluations can be made, and the process can be made a bit more fair.

However, the second point is much more minor than the first, as less than 5% of cases have this as a major problem (Kristich is a great example of this problem though). Fixing the first problem is critical, and neither side as tried anything meaningfull to fix it (the players offered a token right to teams to take players to arbitration, the NHL eliminated it entirely, or limited the raise amount, etc.). I still don't think this will be a problem to get fixed once the chips are down, as the linkage issue is still the barrier to a deal. This arbitration nonsense is a side distraction, IMHO.
 

thedjpd

Registered User
Sponsor
Dec 12, 2002
3,435
672
San Jose, CA
windowlicker said:
Call me crazy, but as a fan I could care less about a players earning potential. If the owner wants to make more, therefore residually more money could be pumped back into his organization, more power to them. Seriously, why would any fan care about an NHL player maxing out his possible career earning potential (unless your'e related to an NHLPA member, you are one, own an exotic car dealership or Gentleman's Club near a rink).

The owners have taken a very hard-line stance. Its unreasonable when compared against the current system & the players should be pissed. But that's life. The employers are dictating to their employee's what the new salary & income structure will be. There is nothing you can do but grin & bear it.

Brilliant.

It's like me going to a company saying, "Pay me this or I won't work for you." What will they say? "Ok, don't work for me. We don't think you're worth that much."

Done. End of story. I go try and find work somewhere else.

The players have no say. At all. The owners run the business, not the players. Nevermind the "players are the product" crap. The employers choose the products, not the employees. The employees just make the product happen, and if the employer doesn't want to invest more than what they think they should, they don't.

It's called a free market.

The only right the players have is to choose where to work. If they don't feel they're getting what their worth, their only choice is to go somewhere else.

In this case, the only places to go are where they actually have less earning potential. This is a no-brainer to me.
 

PhillyNucksFan

Registered User
Dec 27, 2002
2,650
0
Philadelphia
Jobu said:
So why not sign the guy to a 1-year contract? If you do better at your job for one year than the next, does your employer get to reduce your salary? No, it likely gets increased.

The point is, a manager should be paid according to managers with the same experience and capability in the market. That's exactly the same as it should be in the NHL.


huh?

I never said they should not increase the salary, I am only saying there should be a limit to it, base salary wise. I think you are missing my point here. signing 1 year contracts year to year is THE perfect solution; however, obviously, players will never accept that.

quick fact check, Not all people get what they deserve in their real life. Not all people have the same experience as others. You cant just say compare say I doubled this company's revenue from 5M/year to 10M/year, and now, I should make the same 500K/year that the other same position managers are making who's market size is twice as big.

Now, what do you compare? you compare your company with others in the same category. Because it IS a competative labor market, especially at 50K+ segment, I doubt there are COMPANIES who will be overpaying you by doubling your base salary simply because you doubled your former company's revenue output. I am not saying it wont happen, it could, just unlikely
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
Sammy said:
Grow up. Of course they are paying him on the basis of past performance. Common sense is that the supposition everybody works upon is that will continue into the future (why are you even arguing on that, its common sense) The problem is the past performance they use on the most recent & best.
Quit your :cry: :cry: or just leave the board.

You're right. You are paid on the basis of past performance - not anticipated future performance or the msot recent year (unless that was the term of the most recently expired contract). You also need to read http://www.nhlcbanews.com/cba/article12.html.
 

Sammy*

Guest
Jobu said:
Of course not. He will use the marketplace as the yardstick, which is established in the process by the team and the player. If you want to say the marketplace itself is too much, fine, but that is a separate argument - and one that the PA agreed to deal with by rolling back salaries.

The fact that the marketplace for a 35-goal scorer might be $4m doesn't have anything to do with the inherent frailities or shortcomings of arbitration.

By definition negotiation is inflationary; arbitration is the exact same thing - it is meant to mirror negotiation and the dyanmic of negotiation using the established marketplace as a yardstick.

As I said before, who expects to be paid less year over year? It doesn't happen in any business absent extraordinary circumstances.
Look, if I am able in my job to go to binding arbitration & use the exact same process the NHLPA & owners have freely agreed to, I would guarantee you that the incomes for people in my position (a professional), in my City, would skyrocket. Anytime you are using the highest paid guys who are doing the exact same as you in the same job as comprables, even if the other side can provide comprables of their own, the process is highly inflationary. I am not saying the process is unfair (I happen to think its is though, but it was agreed to) , but there is no doubt in my mind it is inflationary.
 

Levitate

Registered User
Jul 29, 2004
30,950
7,656
well players and owners negotiate over their contract, which is for a limited amount of time, blah blah...it's not really employee/employer relationship, it's more like a bunch of contract work. the two sides negotiate a deal for a set amount of time...i just don't see it as the same as the kind of relationship i have with my employer for example. it's theoretically more of a partnership

as for not being able to compare the sports world to the business world...look at any sport, players get raises over 100% all the time. i'm not singling out just the NHL here or making any kind of shocking statement. your argument was that in the "real world" that kind of stuff doesn't happen so why should the NHL be any different. i'm just saying that's not a good comparison because in the sports world that thing is very common. i guess you can debate whether it's a good thing or not, but it's just honestly not the run the same way no matter how you slice it.
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
PhillyNucksFan said:
huh?

I never said they should not increase the salary, I am only saying there should be a limit to it, base salary wise. I think you are missing my point here. signing 1 year contracts year to year is THE perfect solution; however, obviously, players will never accept that.

quick fact check, Not all people get what they deserve in their real life. Not all people have the same experience as others. You cant just say compare say I doubled this company's revenue from 5M/year to 10M/year, and now, I should make the same 500K/year that the other same position managers are making who's market size is twice as big.

Now, what do you compare? you compare your company with others in the same category. Because it IS a competative labor market, especially at 50K+ segment, I doubt there are COMPANIES who will be overpaying you by doubling your base salary simply because you doubled your former company's revenue output. I am not saying it wont happen, it could, just unlikely

Teams could choose a one-year deal in arbitration.

The point is, a player should be paid based on the marketplace. Ideally, this is a player of the same age, experience, performance, trends, etc. This is no different than how it does work and should work in the real world. Artifically limiting one's year-over-year increase makes no sense.
 

Sammy*

Guest
PhillyNucksFan said:
umm... whats the point of personal attacks?

Lets just keep this on topic?

I think this is a good discussion here.
I shouldnt have but the last paragraph of his post was uncalled for, particulary given that I think he knew what I meant (I think anyone could figure it out).
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
Sammy said:
Look, if I am able in my job to go to binding arbitration & use the exact same process the NHLPA & owners have freely agreed to, I would guarantee you that the incomes for people in my position (a professional), in my City, would skyrocket. Anytime you are using the highest paid guys who are doing the exact same as you in the same job as comprables, even if the other side can provide comprables of their own, the process is highly inflationary. I am not saying the process is unfair (I happen to think its is though, but it was agreed to) , but there is no doubt in my mind it is inflationary.

You don't get it. Do you not think that negotiations work the exact same way? You're obviously not very good at it if every year you go into a review accepting 50% less than what a guy down the street doing the exact same job with the exact same resume is getting.
 

PhillyNucksFan

Registered User
Dec 27, 2002
2,650
0
Philadelphia
Levitate said:
well players and owners negotiate over their contract, which is for a limited amount of time, blah blah...it's not really employee/employer relationship, it's more like a bunch of contract work. the two sides negotiate a deal for a set amount of time...i just don't see it as the same as the kind of relationship i have with my employer for example. it's theoretically more of a partnership

Do you even know what you are talking about?

the person who signed this contract agrees to PLAY FOR THE person who is paying him to do so! That is the basic employer/employee situation. I dont see how your "negotiation" part of explanation is relevant to the basic relationship between an employer and employee.

Partnership is another different story. Do you see player names listed beside the Franchise owners' name?? I guess not. OR, do you see any players name LISTED anywhere on the executive level of the franchise, or board of directors?

I guess not.
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
Levitate said:
well players and owners negotiate over their contract, which is for a limited amount of time, blah blah...it's not really employee/employer relationship, it's more like a bunch of contract work. the two sides negotiate a deal for a set amount of time...i just don't see it as the same as the kind of relationship i have with my employer for example. it's theoretically more of a partnership

as for not being able to compare the sports world to the business world...look at any sport, players get raises over 100% all the time. i'm not singling out just the NHL here or making any kind of shocking statement. your argument was that in the "real world" that kind of stuff doesn't happen so why should the NHL be any different. i'm just saying that's not a good comparison because in the sports world that thing is very common. i guess you can debate whether it's a good thing or not, but it's just honestly not the run the same way no matter how you slice it.

And in the real world, none of you clowns earn your employers millions in gate or merchandise receipts, either.

Frankly, the elite in the NHL are underpaid relative to what they generate for their employers.
 

PhillyNucksFan

Registered User
Dec 27, 2002
2,650
0
Philadelphia
Jobu said:
Teams could choose a one-year deal in arbitration.

The point is, a player should be paid based on the marketplace. Ideally, this is a player of the same age, experience, performance, trends, etc. This is no different than how it does work and should work in the real world. Artifically limiting one's year-over-year increase makes no sense.


This is where the situation gets blury and I am not arguing about HOW they should negotation in the arbitration process. I am responding to the thread topic of "Players do not want teams to ahve arbitration rights".

Now, like I said in the very first thread, its like saying

I can sue you, and you cant sue me, despite whatever I have done.

This is just not the way to go, and players should know this.
 

The Fuhr*

Guest
Jobu said:
And in the real world, none of you clowns earn your employers millions in gate or merchandise receipts, either.

Frankly, the elite in the NHL are underpaid relative to what they generate for their employers.


The owners have every right to make millions on merchendise. They pay upwards of 200 million dollars to own a franchise. I think its perfectly fair for the owners to be able to make 20-30 million dollars a year.
 

PhillyNucksFan

Registered User
Dec 27, 2002
2,650
0
Philadelphia
Jobu said:
And in the real world, none of you clowns earn your employers millions in gate or merchandise receipts, either.

Frankly, the elite in the NHL are underpaid relative to what they generate for their employers.


Ahh, ok, now we're talking. You mentioned the relation between the overall revenue/profit of the franchise vs their own salary, is this correct?

So, you are saying, a player is doing so well, and the franchise is making millions, the players should get a cut from the earnigns!?

this sounds more like a partnership relationship, which is not the relationship between player/owner, to me.

Oh, are you saying because the revenue they generated is directly related to their performance on ice?

Well, lets look at the cost and expenses, which relates to risks, how much investment is playing putting into the business? I never heard of a player investing in the franchise WHILE playing. (ok, lets put mario aside). Therefore, the players bear no cost and no risk, and they have zero opportunity cost of the dollar forgone. On this basis alone, they dont deserve what the franchise is making money, that is if they are making money.

when the franchise is losing money, I dont see players voluntarily wants pay cuts to help out the franchise? rather, they have "if you cant afford me, trade me" concepts.

Its just not right
 

thedjpd

Registered User
Sponsor
Dec 12, 2002
3,435
672
San Jose, CA
Jobu said:
And in the real world, none of you clowns earn your employers millions in gate or merchandise receipts, either.

Frankly, the elite in the NHL are underpaid relative to what they generate for their employers.

Employers *INVEST* money into the *EMPLOYEES*, the best ones they see fit, to make *THEMSELVES* money.

Employees are also an *INVESTMENT*.

It is within every right of the *EMPLOYER* to decide *WHAT* they want to spend their money on. *IF* anything.

The hope is that together you make money. Employers will pay employee a price for their services based on revenue generated. Every company is like this. If they are in the red, losing money, they terminate employees. If they are making a lot of money, they will give raises, bonuses, and hire additional employees to make even more money. And both are ABSOLUTELY their right.
 

Epsilon

#basta
Oct 26, 2002
48,464
369
South Cackalacky
thedjpd said:
Brilliant.

It's like me going to a company saying, "Pay me this or I won't work for you." What will they say? "Ok, don't work for me. We don't think you're worth that much."

Done. End of story. I go try and find work somewhere else.

The players have no say. At all. The owners run the business, not the players. Nevermind the "players are the product" crap. The employers choose the products, not the employees. The employees just make the product happen, and if the employer doesn't want to invest more than what they think they should, they don't.

It's called a free market.

The only right the players have is to choose where to work. If they don't feel they're getting what their worth, their only choice is to go somewhere else.

In this case, the only places to go are where they actually have less earning potential. This is a no-brainer to me.

Except the players work for the individual teams, not the NHL. Your analogy makes sense if a player is allowed to become a free agent at the end of every contract he signs.
 

PhillyNucksFan

Registered User
Dec 27, 2002
2,650
0
Philadelphia
Epsilon said:
Except the players work for the individual teams, not the NHL. Your analogy makes sense if a player is allowed to become a free agent at the end of every contract he signs.


good point, this is exactly right. For this to happen, each player is a UFA after each contract.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->