Triumphant Brooks column

[me2]

The NHL salaries increased by an average of 12% over the last decade, but let's take a look at the last 5 seasons.

Salary growth over the last 5 years

5.2%
5.8%
14.4%
9.0%
2.2%

Expansion teams were introduced that artifically lowered the inflation rate during those 1st few years. Between 99-00 and 00-01 the inflation rate for the 28 teams that actually exisisted 99-00 was actually over 8%. Since it is impossible to calculate the inflation on a team that didn't the prior year they should be excluded for their first year. Same with the expansion team the year before.


You should scracth CBJ and Minny from the 00-01 year and increase the inflationary rate by about 3%.

99-00 season is also artificially lower due to Atlanta (add another 1.5% to the figure).

98-99 season due to the introduction of Nashville (add another 1.5%).


Of course all of this depends on whether or not you want an actual picture of the inflationary effects or just lower looking numbers to wave around.

 

[quat]

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

There's a good idea. Lesse.... the Owners offer and the Players offer differs by two plus percent in actual American dollars, so that is enough of a reason to go and sign a three year contract for a fraction of what you would make in the NHL?

Great idea ! Better yet, Like JR suggests, start up your own league. There's bound to be lot's of money during your career to be made there. By the time it was up and running and earning anykind of profit, you'd be well past your playing (ie earning), age... and you'll be dealing with the new players wanting all the money because that's who the fans are coming to see.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

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).

As long as the players are out, they are not paid. As the players come back and cross the line the more the fans will come back and the more money will be made. Without the big ticket players the need to make huge money at the gate is not there.

The lesser lights will likely cross in droves once the owners announce they will start playing games again. When you see the selfish comments from the $2 million players and up I don't think the rank and file will back the superstars. Why kill their career earning potential (they are most subject to the young players coming in and taking their jobs and have to get their money while they can) for some multi-millionaire team mate who refuses to do the right thing for you? Better to take your $800K for a couple of seasons while you can. IMO, all its going to take is one upper eschelon player to come to his senses and come back to play for the owners and the union is finished. The NHLPA doesn't have a clue how close they are to being finished. The egos of those involved make me laugh. No player is bigger than the game. Not even 700 players are bigger than the league. Players come and go, the jerseys are what people cheer for.

 

[PecaFan]

Expansion teams were introduced that artifically lowered the inflation rate during those 1st few years.

Excellent point. And even with all those new low contracts, note that *still* one of those years was well over the 12%.

Nope, the 12% is fair and accurate.

 

[thinkwild]

There's a good idea. Lesse.... the Owners offer and the Players offer differs by two plus percent in actual American dollars, so that is enough of a reason to go and sign a three year contract for a fraction of what you would make in the NHL?

No you're right, much better would be to offer a 26% rollback and we'd have a deal.

The most inflationary aspect of the last CBA is that revenues were climbing astronimically.

 

[quat]

No you're right, much better would be to offer a 26% rollback and we'd have a deal.

The most inflationary aspect of the last CBA is that revenues were climbing astronimically.

How would you have a deal? Are you are suggesting that teams are all doing extremely well and there is no problem with the league? The last CBA was good for the owners... and in fact, even better than it was for the players?

 

[thinkwild]

Im kidding. Bettman says they are only 2% apart. So 26% should do it then right?

 

[myrocketsgotcracked]

In taking the offer of a giveback, misrepresenting it as acknowledgment of the PA's acceptance of the Levitt Audit and attempting to turn the more modestly paid players against the league's highest-paid athletes — the NHL proposes a graduated giveback rate under which players making over $5M per have their salaries slashed by 35 percent — Bettman only further solidified the union.

i dont understand this statement from brooks. if 90% of the PA members lose less money under bettman's proposal, how does it solidified the union? does he mean that players like cooke or may are angry at bettman because under his system they'll lose less money? not to mention they'll likely never earn $5M a year, so they will never lose as much money under bettman's proposal as opposed to goodenow's. if players are rational and cares only about their own well being, the union is in trouble.

 

[thinkwild]

The proposal and the whole tone of the owners was basically slapping the players in the face and poking them with a stick. Its clear as day that the proposal was designed to union bust. It cant help but appear to the players that the owners are going to try and divide and conquer them in a fight. They are fighting together and this will bring them together. The union isnt going to crack. They have too much money. They will still be making a normal persons salary for the next 2 years. I think they should come back, keep the teams but name them after the captain, and play a season in public arenas and put it on ppv for their lockout pay. The standings will be in the paper. We'll be following them. They get to play for the glory. They may even get their own tv deal.

Bettman must know that too. Perhaps Hockey and basketball will be sitting out at the same time next year. Wont that be something.

 

[CarlRacki]

The proposal and the whole tone of the owners was basically slapping the players in the face and poking them with a stick. Its clear as day that the proposal was designed to union bust. It cant help but appear to the players that the owners are going to try and divide and conquer them in a fight. They are fighting together and this will bring them together. The union isnt going to crack. They have too much money. They will still be making a normal persons salary for the next 2 years. I think they should come back, keep the teams but name them after the captain, and play a season in public arenas and put it on ppv for their lockout pay. The standings will be in the paper. We'll be following them. They get to play for the glory. They may even get their own tv deal.

Bettman must know that too. Perhaps Hockey and basketball will be sitting out at the same time next year. Wont that be something.

1. They have less money than the owners. A lot less. And, unlike the owners, they rely entirely on hockey revenue to live.
2. Perhaps they'll make a normal person's salary. Do they also have a normal person's mortgage? (No) A normal person's living expenses? (No) A normal person's tastes? (No) A normal person's country club dues? (No) A normal person's summer home? (No)
3. Yes, I know I'd be willing to pay $30 to my satellite company to watch the Chicago Ruutus square off against the St. Louis Prongers down at the outdoor rink on State Street. It'll make the players millions.

 

[Wondercarrot]

2. Perhaps they'll make a normal person's salary. Do they also have a normal person's mortgage? (No) A normal person's living expenses? (No) A normal person's tastes? (No) A normal person's country club dues? (No) A normal person's summer home? (No)

sniff'sniff..if you ***** (ha! that's pretty funny..."pr ick" is a banned word) me, do i not bleed?

3. Yes, I know I'd be willing to pay $30 to my satellite company to watch the Chicago Ruutus square off against the St. Louis Prongers down at the outdoor rink on State Street. It'll make the players millions.

Hmmm...when you put it like that it sounds entertaining. How much would this package of yours cost for the year (including playoffs)?
Count me in when Toronto Sundins come to town....the Ottawa Alfredssons have a score or four to settle.
You'll pay Toronto, that's right you'll pay.....THIS TIME.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

1. They have less money than the owners. A lot less. And, unlike the owners, they rely entirely on hockey revenue to live.

Yes, they have less money, but there are also missing out on a lot less money and they have much smaller bills than the owners have.

Owners have to come up with money to pay leases and martgages on the buildigns they play in. There are teams that this is costing $10's of millions of dollars.

 

[chara]

Actually, Bettman is doing exactly what the owners want him to do.

Precisely. Bettman was hired for this very battle. The owners dumped nice guy Ziegler for this very day. He has done everything the owners have expected of him except deliver a cap and that wasn't his fault. In 94-95, the owners caved with new franchise money and expensive new arenas to pay off. They couldn't afford to lose a season but now they can. Moreover, some are prepared to flush 2-3 seasons down the drain to get a deal that will solidify the league not only 5 years from now but 25 yrs from now.

The players are absolute idiots for finger pointing Bettman. They need to point their fingers right back at their own owners.