5 things that annoy me about the NHLPA (and supporters)

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by Chelios, Oct 16, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Chelios

    Chelios Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    4,176
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Home Page:
    There are alot of things that annoy me, and that I truely cannot understand from the point of view of the players and their supporters. Here are my top 5:

    5) The argument that everything would be fine as long as owners and GMs stuck to their budget.

    The problem is that everyone could stick to a budget, but when New York and Toronto have a 60 million dollar budget its still going to be nearly impossible for Calgary or Edmonton to compete with a 35 million dollar budget. The NHL needs an even financial playing field, they don`t have that right now.

    4) The argument that the owners locked the players out, so the NHLPA are trying to tell the public that they want to play and even offered to keep playing during negotiations.

    OF COURSE THEY WOULD WANT TO PLAY!! They would be playing under the old system, nothing would change, there would still be the same problems that triggered this lockout. If the owners were to allow them to play during negotiations then what motivation would they have for trying to resolve this anytime soon? Absolutely none as long as they`re continuing to rake in their obsene contracts.

    3) The NHLPA`s latest offer

    They are trying to get the public to believe that this offer is workable and that they are negotiating in good faith, yet under their plan many teams would still lose money, some of them quite a bit. Not only was it a brutal offer, and a step back from their previous one, but they wouldn`t even guarentee that it would work as they say it will. It is pretty obvious that they know it won`t work.

    2) This idea that the NHLPA are being so much more flexible than the owners.

    Are the NHLPA making some concessions from the previous CBA? Absolutely they are. Is it anywhere near enough? Not even close. The NHL are being no more stubborn for insisting on a cap than the NHLPA are for insisting on no cap. The players continuously say that the owners won`t budge from their salary cap, when they won`t budge from their no salary cap.

    1) The NHLPA refuting the numbers of the NHL.

    Its not that the union does not agree with the numbers provided by the NHL and the Levitt report, but the fact that they do so without making any effort whatsoever to find their own numbers. Two things annoy me on this topic: a) That the NHLPA declined to meet with Arthur Levitt to even discuss how he got these numbers. Instead they just reject them outright. b) That the NHLPA has consistently refused to hire their own auditor to audit the NHL`s books, again, much prefferring to simply reject their numbers outright. I think it is pretty obvious that the NHLPA really doesn`t want to know the real numbers.
     
  2. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    How can the PA audit the numbers if the NHL doesn't let them?
     
  3. hunter1909*

    hunter1909* Guest

    whats cool is when the owners smash the union after losing a season...

    the nhlpa will be as lame as a 3 legged cow
     
  4. Chelios

    Chelios Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    4,176
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Home Page:
    An auditors job is to find the "real" numbers. The NHL has publicly offered up the books for the NHLPA to audit. They have refused. If the books are so wrong, then why hasn`t the NHLPA hired an auditer to look over them and publicly say that they are not accurate? The answer is obvious to me: either the NHLPA does not want to know the real numbers, or they know them and don`t want to admit them.
     
  5. c_mak

    c_mak Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Messages:
    835
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    81
    Occupation:
    social worker
    Location:
    Waterloo
    of all the rhetoric i have read about this lockout, this is the thing that confuses me the most.... why won't the PA hire their own auditor?.. other than the obvious fear of finding the owners are telling the truth are there any other real reason they might not want an audit doneone of the biggest hurdles for the PA seems to be trust. how can this be constrewed as anything but a trust type overature...
    could it be that the players fear the owners are sooo much smarter than them thatt they will fool them agian with their "magic numbers" ;)
     
  6. John Flyers Fan

    John Flyers Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    22,416
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    So, you believe that the Rangers LOST $40 million last year ???
     
  7. SuperUnknown

    SuperUnknown Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    4,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Because what the PA considers as "hockey revenues" would never be considered 100% hockey revenues by auditors (who would allocate revenues using accounting principles). Also, it would paint themselves in a corner negociating on numbers while now they can negociate on principles.
     
  8. Chelios

    Chelios Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    4,176
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Home Page:
    I`m not saying that I believe that, what I am asking is why aren`t the NHLPA making any attempt to give me numbers for me to believe?
     
  9. Chelios

    Chelios Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    4,176
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Home Page:
    Well then why doesn`t the NHLPA define what it considers "hockey revenues" and audit the teams according to their criteria?
     
  10. Brent Burns Beard

    Brent Burns Beard DontTouchMyDonskoi!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    5,153
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    146
    well, i wont speak for the NHLPA, since Im not one of them, but from my perspective I would answer this.

    because they shouldnt care whats in the #'s. they dont deny their is less money available now to pay players and are willing to discuss new mechanisms for the owners to utulize to drag the *majority* of salaries.

    they simply dont believe that they need to concede a full cap to acheive the owners goals of reducing the players share.

    dr
     
  11. Brent Burns Beard

    Brent Burns Beard DontTouchMyDonskoi!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    5,153
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    146
    I will take issue with this one.

    What has TOR done that has made it worth the 60m payroll ? Show me more than one signing that TOR has done that has impacted the NHL payroll structure ?

    TOR signed {player a} and as a result another owner had to pay overpay {player b}.
    and
    TOR signed {player c} and as a result another owner had to pay overpay {player d}.

    If TOR and NYR and STL want to carry 60m + payrolls to have limited success, LET THEM ! Thats punishment enough.

    Call them Cinderalla or not, but CGY, ANA, BUF, CRL, WSH and MIN have had more shots at the cup in the recent past than any of TOR, PHI, STL, NYR.

    NJD, DET and COL are examples of teams built the RIGHT WAY and cost alot because they have had doezens of rounds of playoff money to draw from and the types of players who command that much money. I think this is fair & just that they have had the dominance of the league.

    DR
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2004
  12. I in the Eye

    I in the Eye Drop a ball it falls

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2002
    Messages:
    5,746
    Likes Received:
    1,007
    Trophy Points:
    184
    IMO, they should care just in case this thing goes to the courts... For a more convincing argument, they will need to provide proof to go along with their theories... and to go along with their strategy of discrediting the Levitt report... The NHL has the Levitt report for the courts to mull over... IMO, the NHLPA will need something similar that supports their cause to help them compete in the 'evidence race'...

    Their choice though...
     
  13. mr gib

    mr gib Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2004
    Messages:
    5,853
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    rock and roller
    Location:
    vancouver
    Home Page:
    don't forget - the owners are under no obligation to show the books to anyone - this has been an issue with the nhlpa since the ted lindsay days - thus the levitt report -
     
  14. I in the Eye

    I in the Eye Drop a ball it falls

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2002
    Messages:
    5,746
    Likes Received:
    1,007
    Trophy Points:
    184
    True... If the owners don't show the books, then IMO, this adds fuel to the 'good faith' bargaining fire - it can work to the NHLPA's favour... And even if it's not an independent report of the league's revenue and finances, I think the NHLPA needs, at least, to have a formal, independent review of the Levitt report... Something that they can use as solid proof in case this goes to court...

    It can't hurt 'em... If they don't like what this independent review says, they can hide it in a safe behind a portrait paiting of Goodenow...
     
  15. Chelios

    Chelios Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    4,176
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Home Page:
    Nowhere in my post did I say anything about one teams payroll affecting other teams payroll. What I said is that it is much much harder for a team with a $35 million payroll to be competitive than it is for a team with a $60 million payroll. What I am getting at is that if everyone in the league had the same budget (via salary cap or hard luxury tax) then everyone would have the opportunity to be competitive every year.
     
  16. Brent Burns Beard

    Brent Burns Beard DontTouchMyDonskoi!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    5,153
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    146
    a) everyteam under TODAY's CBA has a chance to be competitive from year to year. or have you not noticed how many different teams make the playoffs and the final four and finals from year to year. is the evidence that ANA, BUF, WSH, CGY, and CRL all have had cracks at the cup in the last few years and NYR, TOR, PHI, STL, and other high payrolls haven't not enough for you and not what you would define as a fair league ?

    b) if each team has the same chance of SUCCESS, it means each team has the same chance of FAILURE. Why should we make it EASIER & more PROFITABLE for NYR and STL to compete with OTT and VAN ? If your team has taken the long patient road to build your team, do you want it to have the same chance as teams that cant get their head our of their ass ? Wouldnt you prefer a league where OTT and VAN and SJS and NJD and COL have more on ice sucess over teams like the the TOR, NYR, STL and WSH of this league (this is the league we have today).

    c) fine, the players have offered a luxury tax. never mind if the triggers are set at the right point, the owners wont even negotiate it. so if you believe the lockout can be resolved by negotiating a luxury tax, then you should hold the owners, not the players, accountable for the lack of negotiation.

    so in light of C, why are you annoyed with the players, you support a luxury tax and they are open to negotiating one. Its the owners who refuse to bargain on that condition.

    by the way, there is no distinction beween hard or soft luxury tax, unless you want to clarify.

    DR
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2004
  17. Chelios

    Chelios Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    4,176
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Home Page:
    I don`t feel like getting into a big argument on league competitiveness because that isn`t what this thread is about, I think it is suffice to say that the anaheims, calgarys and carolinas of the world are the exception to the rule, not the norm.

    If every team is on the same economic playing field than it would reward teams that draft well and make good hockey decisions, shouldn`t that be the goal of this league?

    The players have made it absolutely clear (as you can see in their proposals) that they will not accept any luxury tax that is stiff enough to act like any type of barrier for salaries, until the players are willing to accept a stiff luxury tax why should the owners come off their hard cap stance?
     
  18. x-bob

    x-bob Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,011
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Occupation:
    Engineer
    Location:
    Montreal
    I totaly agree with you but we can probebly make a list like this against the owners too
     
  19. Brent Burns Beard

    Brent Burns Beard DontTouchMyDonskoi!

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    5,153
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    146
    how can they be considered the exception when it happens year after year. arent you arguing a cap will help many teams with a chance at the cup and im saying it happens now every year.

    So the fact that teams like NJD, OTT, SJS, VAN, TBY and the such would have to break up there teams for your CAP league doesnt bother you then ? The fact that the teams that will benefit and profit from it are TOR, NYR, DAL, STL and WSH doesnt bother you ?




    thats debateable, but the only fact is the owners wont even negotiate that condition.

    dr
     
  20. garry1221

    garry1221 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Walled Lake, Mi
    Home Page:
    i still have yet to see any proof that a hard cap will make teams break apart their rosters year after year. You, more than anyone else here keeps on saying this and i still can't see it happening that way, a cap will hold salaries in check with revenue or whatever both sides agree to... this in no way says that teams couldn't hold a team together while staying under the cap, obviously there'd be some sort of franchise player(s) exemption written in for the players to buy into it more, and if the QO is reduced as has been mentioned then there's no reason any team should be forced to break apart because a cap is in place. If you try to use football as an example then don't bother answering as football doesn't have guaranteed contracts and thus can't be used because if they wanted to any football team could rip apart its team altogether and build a new one, however this can't happen in the nhl so there is no basis to use football as an example
     
  21. Chelios

    Chelios Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    4,176
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Home Page:
    OTT, SJS, VAN and TBY would all be more likely to be able to keep their teams in tact under a cap than under the previous CBA IMO.
     
  22. SuperUnknown

    SuperUnknown Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    4,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Simply because you can only bend accounting principles so much. For example, you have to question whether a rink is worthless without a hockey team or not. If the rink isn't worthless without the hockey team, then what is it worth? How much revenues will it get?

    The NHLPA thinks that all revenues surrounding a hockey team should be allocated to the hockey team. For example, luxury box cost grants access to all the events at the rink, so the teams allocate a part of the luxury box revenues to the other events. Usually, this is done based on the revenues that you earn from each event. (Ie: Revenues for hockey games (seats) during the year is $30M, for other events it's $15M. If the luxury box revenues are $30M, $20M will be assessed as hockey revenue and $10M as event revenue.) Basically, because revenue streams and allocations surrounding the team might not always be allocated to hockey, the NHLPA will always say that the revenues are understated (and it's possible that in some cases, they are understated). The problem the NHLPA faces is that there ain't no auditor worth a penny that will calculate revenues the way they calculate it.
     
  23. rwilson99

    rwilson99 Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    84
    Occupation:
    Real Estate Agent
    Location:
    TAMPA, FL
    Home Page:
    I can't show a specific example with TOR, but every overpriced signing by any team effects the signing of players who require qualifying offers and others in arbitration.

    Example Bobby Holik's $9M/year contract drives up the average salary, making more and more marginal players, eligible for higher and higher qualifying offers. Also, Holik can be used as a comparable when other defensemen are in arbitration hearings.

    This all happens when NYR is apparently a loss-leader in Cablevision's corporate umbrella.
     
  24. 19Yzerman19

    19Yzerman19 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,835
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Holik is a forward! :shakehead
     
  25. SuperUnknown

    SuperUnknown Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    4,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    BTW, Cablevision's shareholders shouldn't be happy with that, because while they're using the NYR tax credit, their global value is still going down with such maneuvers. This is the kind of crap that corporate America has to cut to stop the Enron's and company.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"