Triumphant Brooks column

[Kaiped Krusader]

I own a business and somehow I manage to pay my employees what I think they're worth to me, and more importantly, I pay them what I can afford to pay them. It's really not all that hard to do.

Do you have direct competitors that are paying their employees that are equivalent to yours twice as much? Or maybe they're giving their employees annual raises that far outstrip yours? Do your employees clamor to be given the same pay and benefits those guys get? Can they take you to a third-party to force you to pay what employees at wealthy companies get? Do your customers demand that you pay your employees what the wealthy competitors are paying theirs, while keeping a lid on the prices you charge them? Do your customers whine about how cheap you are when your employees defect to the competitors for more pay?

If the answer to all these was "yes", then I guess I can see your point.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Do you have direct competitors that are paying their employees that are equivalent to yours twice as much? Some pay more, some pay less.

Or maybe they're giving their employees annual raises that far outstrip yours? Some likely do, again some don't.

Do your employees clamor to be given the same pay and benefits those guys get?
My employees do ask for raises, abslutely, and they are aware of what others get paid.

Can they take you to a third-party to force you to pay what employees at wealthy companies get? No, and if you'll notice the NHLPA has offered to change how the arbitration system works.

Do your customers demand that you pay your employees what the wealthy competitors are paying theirs, while keeping a lid on the prices you charge them?
Nope, and if they did, i would have no reason to listen to them, just like good owners and GM's in the NHL operate.

Do your customers whine about how cheap you are when your employees defect to the competitors for more pay? Nope and again if they did, that could feel free to choose a competitors product. Owners didn't become multi-millionaires by listening to the public, they did it by making smart business decisions.

.

 

[Kodiak]

Also, John does not have the benefit of restricting his employees. Standard employment contracts are terminable at will by either party. At any moment, any employee could quit and work for a competitor offering more. Yet, somehow, John still manages to make his business work in such an unequal business climate.

 

[CarlRacki]

Players aren't asking for their salaries to grow regardless of revenues. They're telling owners, "pay us what you can afford" It's up to the owners to decide what they can afford.

All private enterprises that want to stay in business owners set a budget and stick to it.

I own a business and somehow I manage to pay my employees what I think they're worth to me, and more importantly, I pay them what I can afford to pay them. It's really not all that hard to do.

The problem is that does not work under a "league" structure in which the budget for one team is $78 million and for another it's $28 million. You're right that if all teams set a budget and stuck to it, they potentially could all make money. However, the lower-budget, smaller-market teams would find it almost impossible to:
1. Compete consistently with the big boys
2. Attract/sign quality free agents
3. Sign their own quality players when they become free agents

If you want the NHL to look like MLB, where the majority of teams know they won't compete for a championship before the season begins, then keep the system as is. Otherwise, create an economic system that won't in itself completely level the playing field (personnel decisions, coaching and player development will still separate the good from the bad) but won't make money the primary divideder between the haves and the have nots in the NHL.

 

[CarlRacki]

Except that the teams only bid on a very small percentage of NHL players at one time.

Almost every player under 31 does not get teams to bid on his services. He can negotiate with one team and one team only. Teams will always try to get the player as cheap as possible while the player will try to get as much as possible.

You're argument would make sense if you hadn't conveniently ignored a player-friendly arbitration system that's played a huge role in the vast over-inflation of NHL salaries.

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

What do a ton of players do when the owners give them what they can afford? They sit out like a bunch of babies. They sit out, the fans get on the GM and owners. It creates a really bad position. In a lot of situations the team caves in b/c they don't want their fan base to drop or some other negative things to happen if they just trade the player away or not sign him.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

You're argument would make sense if you hadn't conveniently ignored a player-friendly arbitration system that's played a huge role in the vast over-inflation of NHL salaries.

Yes, and if you'll note the players are willing to change that arbitration system.

 

[CarlRacki]

Also, John does not have the benefit of restricting his employees. Standard employment contracts are terminable at will by either party. At any moment, any employee could quit and work for a competitor offering more. Yet, somehow, John still manages to make his business work in such an unequal business climate.

That's not exactly true. Most employees are greatly restricted by family committments, living arrangements, market forces, etc. The average assistant manager at the Omaha Wal-Mart store, for example, can't pick up his family and move to Orlando because a Target down there is willing to pay him a few thousand more dollars every year.
Also, comparing NHL players to the people who work for John is very likely apples and oranges. NHL players are highly skilled workers who perform a job only a few hundred people on the entire planet are capable of performing. As a result, the business that employees them, i.e. their team, cannot just let its best players take up with a competitor, replace that player with the next person who comes along and expect to remain competitive in the market.

 

[Kaiped Krusader]

Also, comparing NHL players to the people who work for John is very likely apples and oranges. NHL players are highly skilled workers who perform a job only a few hundred people on the entire planet are capable of performing. As a result, the business that employees them, i.e. their team, cannot just let its best players take up with a competitor, replace that player with the next person who comes along and expect to remain competitive in the market.

Great point. I wish I could've included that in my prior post. It's a very important distinction between comparing "real world" businesses and businesses like elite sports leagues that rely on the top 1% of performers in their trade. John can let his employees walk if they demand ridiculous raises because he knows they're replaceable fairly easily. NHL owners and GMs face a lot more pressure in submitting to severe salary inflation.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Great point. I wish I could've included that in my prior post. It's a very important distinction between comparing "real world" businesses and businesses like elite sports leagues that rely on the top 1% of performers in their trade. John can let his employees walk if they demand ridiculous raises because he knows they're replaceable fairly easily. NHL owners and GMs face a lot more pressure in submitting to severe salary inflation.

It's true, but it's also true that in the middle of my busiest time of year I could have 3 employees up and quit and start working for a competitor that is 1 mile away and there is nothing I could do about it.

I don't thnk that the Ottawa Senators have to worry about Hossa, Alfredsson and Hvalat deciding March 1st, to quit on them and sign with the Leafs for the remainder of the season.

 

[Kodiak]

That's not exactly true. Most employees are greatly restricted by family committments, living arrangements, market forces, etc. The average assistant manager at the Omaha Wal-Mart store, for example, can't pick up his family and move to Orlando because a Target down there is willing to pay him a few thousand more dollars every year.

Hockey players are not automatons. They face the same problems. Many players have taken contracts below market value because they did not want to uproot their families. The assistant manager at Wal-Mart has to decide whether the costs (both economic and personal) of moving to another city for a better job is greater or less than the benefit. An NHL player has to do the same (unless he's been traded).

Also, comparing NHL players to the people who work for John is very likely apples and oranges. NHL players are highly skilled workers who perform a job only a few hundred people on the entire planet are capable of performing. As a result, the business that employees them, i.e. their team, cannot just let its best players take up with a competitor, replace that player with the next person who comes along and expect to remain competitive in the market.

And if John has a particularly skilled employee, one who helps immensely with running the business, he cannot just let that employee walk away and take a job with a competitor. I'm sure John has employees that are easily replaceable and ones that are not, just like any other business.

 

[CarlRacki]

It's true, but it's also true that in the middle of my busiest time of year I could have 3 employees up and quit and start working for a competitor that is 1 mile away and there is nothing I could do about it.

I don't thnk that the Ottawa Senators have to worry about Hossa, Alfredsson and Hvalat deciding March 1st, to quit on them and sign with the Leafs for the remainder of the season.

That's because you don't have your employees signed to exclusive contracts as is the case with NHL teams. There are plenty of businesses out there that have employees, particularly their most highly skilled employees, signed to contracts that place restrictions on when and where they can work for a competitor. For example, contracts for some media figures (i.e. newspaper columnists, teleprompter readers, etc.) are frequently barred under employment contracts from leaving station A and going across town to work for station B for a period of a year.
My guess is you don't require such contracts because it's wholly unnecessary in your industry.

 

[Steve L*]

Here we go, more blatent troll behaviour from BR, post a moronic article then sit back and watch as an arguement breaks out.

 

[Lexicon Devil]

NHL revenue's have grown an average of just under 9% a year over the last 5 seasons.

Yes, I know. I was kidding.

 

[Cawz]

Here we go, more blatent troll behaviour from BR, post a moronic article then sit back and watch as an arguement breaks out.

But he's associated with HF isnt he (a moderator or something)? It benefits the boards to have more discussion, so he posts something that will result in mas replies, more people come back to check who responded to them etc...

Just like the author of the article. He's paid to be devils advocate. I think most people see right through his rhet though.

 

[Steve Latin*]

Players aren't asking for their salaries to grow regardless of revenues. They're telling owners, "pay us what you can afford" It's up to the owners to decide what they can afford.

All private enterprises that want to stay in business owners set a budget and stick to it.

I own a business and somehow I manage to pay my employees what I think they're worth to me, and more importantly, I pay them what I can afford to pay them. It's really not all that hard to do.

You're also probably not competing against some millionaire who can pay your employees twice as much as you can and then run his business at a loss just to stroke his inflated ego.

S L

 

[quat]

Players aren't asking for their salaries to grow regardless of revenues. They're telling owners, "pay us what you can afford" It's up to the owners to decide what they can afford.

All private enterprises that want to stay in business owners set a budget and stick to it.

I own a business and somehow I manage to pay my employees what I think they're worth to me, and more importantly, I pay them what I can afford to pay them. It's really not all that hard to do.

And you actually believe that the players would be happy if their salaries were dropping every year... or showing no growth? I mean, come one.

They're saying pay us what you can afford because they know there is a huge discrepancy in what different teams can afford, and it's the larger, richer markets that set the bar.

This comment "pay us what you can afford" is completely disingenious. And the owners get called liers. I tell you, I almost puke whenever I hear Linden trot out that line, and I like him.

The league needs competition to stay healthy. So the budget should be set as though the league were a single entity... which the owners are trying to do... which the players do not want.

 

[jcpenny]

Players aren't asking for their salaries to grow regardless of revenues. They're telling owners, "pay us what you can afford" It's up to the owners to decide what they can afford.

All private enterprises that want to stay in business owners set a budget and stick to it.

I own a business and somehow I manage to pay my employees what I think they're worth to me, and more importantly, I pay them what I can afford to pay them. It's really not all that hard to do.

This is not true and you know it. Players dont care if owners can afford them or not all they do is compare themselves to other players and define what they want from that. If owners cant afford it they look elsewhere , thats how it works.

 

[jcpenny]

This comment "pay us what you can afford" is completely disingenious. And the owners get called liers. I tell you, I almost puke whenever I hear Linden trot out that line, and I like him.

QUOTE]
You are not alone. The players looks like a bunch of guys that never went to school, wait a minute THEY NEVER DID!

 

[Quantas]

You're argument would make sense if you hadn't conveniently ignored a player-friendly arbitration system that's played a huge role in the vast over-inflation of NHL salaries.

You don't even need arbitration...just look at what happened after Richards got his new contract from the Lightening. Both Havlat and Gaborik sat out and we all know how well that worked out for both the teams and the players. Sure the Sens were okay, and towards the end, so was Havlat, but it was a completely different story for Minnesota.

 

[Poignant Discussion*]

What the players need to do now is go out and sign 2 and 3 year contracts in other leagues. I wonder how thrilled the Bruins will be once they find out when this lockout is over they have lost star players

I'll say this Bettman is close to having all the teams on equal footing. In a couple years all 30 teams will be bankurupt with no revenues coming in.

Of course they could try it with replacment players and show the newer markets how BAD some hockey can be and turn people off of hockey forever.

The owners are certainly batting 1.000

 

[SENSible1*]

What the players need to do now is go out and sign 2 and 3 year contracts in other leagues. I wonder how thrilled the Bruins will be once they find out when this lockout is over they have lost star players

I'll say this Bettman is close to having all the teams on equal footing. In a couple years all 30 teams will be bankurupt with no revenues coming in.

Of course they could try it with replacment players and show the newer markets how BAD some hockey can be and turn people off of hockey forever.

The owners are certainly batting 1.000

I'm sure Thorton would gladly do so, just as soon as he can find anyone willing to pay 1/3rd of what the Bruins do.

PA supporters love to ignore the fact that the players can offer their sevices anywhere they want in the world in a completely free market. Perhaps then they'd realize just how valuable their services actually are.

The NHL has put its foot down and said; "If you want to play in the NHL, this is how its going to be." The players are free to go play hockey anywhere else they want, but if they play in the NHL in the future, it will be under cost certainty.

 

[CarlRacki]

I'm sure Thorton would gladly do so, just as soon as he can find anyone willing to pay 1/3rd of what the Bruins do.

PA supporters love to ignore the fact that the players can offer their sevices anywhere they want in the world in a completely free market. Perhaps then they'd realize just how valuable their services actually are.

The NHL has put its foot down and said; "If you want to play in the NHL, this is how its going to be." The players are free to go play hockey anywhere else they want, but if they play in the NHL in the future, it will be under cost certainty.

Ding! Ding! Ding!
The whole notion that these players would be better off in Europe than in a capped NHL is so laughable it's hardly worth discussing.
Good players in the Russian league earn $600-$900K a year, so about half of the $1.3 million average salary under the owners' proposal. In Sweden and Switzerland, good players earn $200-300K, less than the proposed NHL minimum.
Hey, if Joe Thornton wants to give up $4+ million a year to go play in St. Petersburg on principle, then more power to him. I'm sure his family and agent will think it's a wonderful idea.

Story on Euro salaries:
http://www.prosportsgroup.com/SportsAgentNews/Sep2004/News/nhl.htm

 

[Epsilon]

Several of the players at Ak Bars are making money that's as good or better than their NHL salaries.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

Please tell me how the NHL will continue to generate the revenues necessary to pay these players the best salaries in the world if they are not playing any games? (and a scab game is not a game).