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

[Brent Burns Beard]

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.

well considering they are all over the magical 31 million mark, how you propose they even keep what they have now, nevre mind in the future ?

dr

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

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.

1) Holik is not a defensman, nor can his UFA contract be used as a comparable in arbitration

2) How much does 9m impact the average of 1.5b ? Hardly.

3) There are hardly a handful of players each year who are able to use being under the average salary as a ticket to early UFA. Again, hardly an impact.

No one is being compared to Holik and his contract affects no one but NYR, big deal.

DR

 

[mr gib]

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.

arbitration is a big reason why things are the way they are - i heard it said the owners really blew it over that one - the players clearly owtwitted them - once again i ask - who's fault is that? - and before i get creamed - the arbitration process how it exists now has to be changed - a cap is going to do nothing -

 

[x-bob]

Holik is a forward!

:lol :lol :lol

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

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.

This is one way to split these revenues, but Levitt didn't do it that way. He used attendance. It isn't just the luxury boxes where it is problematical. What about the advertising? Suppose a week long boat show draws 250,000 people. Or a dog show fills the rink for a week.

The luxury boxes may be empty and the boards have been taken down and the scoreboard isn't showing anything, but a person attending one of these events is allocated the same slice of advertising and luxury box money as a fan at the hockey game? Revenues is a much better way to do it in my opinion, but the more important point is that however you do it, the answer is very likely wrong. One formula can't fit 30 different businesses.

Nobody outside the company knows how the Canucks and GM Place revenues are now split. When the team-rink relationship was structured, Orca Bay allocated 100% of the corporate sponsorship and luxury box revenue to the rink. This may have changed by now, but if not, the league actually makes McCaw report more money to the URO than Canuck books show.

On the other hand, the Oilers get all of the luxury box revenue at Rexall Place because they built the boxes. When they report according to Levitt, they report less money than they actually take in. Perhaps it all comes out in the wash, but that would be a very surprising result. Everybody takes more or less than is reflected in the URO. The designated hockey revenues are a formula in a situation where a formula can't reflect reality.

If the NHLPA wanted to get a handle on real hockey revenues (or if Levitt wanted to do his job right) they have to examine the books of the team and all the affiliated businesses. They have to estimate a different percentage rink to rink because they are all different. In some of the Canadian rinks, almost all the advertising and luxury box revenue is generated by the hockey team. In Toronto, the Raptors would get a big chunk, but not nearly as big as the Leafs. In American markets the number would a lot smaller, perhaps only 20% of the advertising value if they share a facility with a successful basketball team.

If I was Goodenow, I might accept a relationship between revenues and salaries as long as the owners tabled the actual audited financial statements of each team and each affiliated entity along with the arena lease and broadcasting contracts. Then negotiate hockey revenues on a team by team basis in light of the specific business model and try to get to a realistic picture. Both sides can hire some full time people who work all year round tracking revenues in 30 different organizations.

It may not be entirely practical and it is expensive, but it is a reasonable way to do it. Set up an ongoing NHL-NHLPA committee that has complete and open access to the books of all NHL teams and the books of all affiliated businesses. The committee responsibility is to identify, on an ongoing basis, the hockey revenues.

What if Goodenow offered to do that. If he said, "Fine. We wiill link salaries to revenues on a sliding scale. The higher the revenues the larger our percentage. And we decide what hockey revenues are by negotiating them team by team. Forget this URO stuff. Let's table the real books and get to negotiating."

Tom

 

[mr gib]

This is one way to split these revenues, but Levitt didn't do it that way. He used attendance. It isn't just the luxury boxes where it is problematical. What about the advertising? Suppose a week long boat show draws 250,000 people. Or a dog show fills the rink for a week.

The luxury boxes may be empty and the boards have been taken down and the scoreboard isn't showing anything, but a person attending one of these events is allocated the same slice of advertising and luxury box money as a fan at the hockey game? Revenues is a much better way to do it in my opinion, but the more important point is that however you do it, the answer is very likely wrong. One formula can't fit 30 different businesses.

Nobody outside the company knows how the Canucks and GM Place revenues are now split. When the team-rink relationship was structured, Orca Bay allocated 100% of the corporate sponsorship and luxury box revenue to the rink. This may have changed by now, but if not, the league actually makes McCaw report more money to the URO than Canuck books show.

On the other hand, the Oilers get all of the luxury box revenue at Rexall Place because they built the boxes. When they report according to Levitt, they report less money than they actually take in. Perhaps it all comes out in the wash, but that would be a very surprising result. Everybody takes more or less than is reflected in the URO. The designated hockey revenues are a formula in a situation where a formula can't reflect reality.

If the NHLPA wanted to get a handle on real hockey revenues (or if Levitt wanted to do his job right) they have to examine the books of the team and all the affiliated businesses. They have to estimate a different percentage rink to rink because they are all different. In some of the Canadian rinks, almost all the advertising and luxury box revenue is generated by the hockey team. In Toronto, the Raptors would get a big chunk, but not nearly as big as the Leafs. In American markets the number would a lot smaller, perhaps only 20% of the advertising value if they share a facility with a successful basketball team.

If I was Goodenow, I might accept a relationship between revenues and salaries as long as the owners tabled the actual audited financial statements of each team and each affiliated entity along with the arena lease and broadcasting contracts. Then negotiate hockey revenues on a team by team basis in light of the specific business model and try to get to a realistic picture. Both sides can hire some full time people who work all year round tracking revenues in 30 different organizations.

It may not be entirely practical and it is expensive, but it is a reasonable way to do it. Set up an ongoing NHL-NHLPA committee that has complete and open access to the books of all NHL teams and the books of all affiliated businesses. The committee responsibility is to identify, on an ongoing basis, the hockey revenues.

What if Goodenow offered to do that. If he said, "Fine. We wiill link salaries to revenues on a sliding scale. The higher the revenues the larger our percentage. And we decide what hockey revenues are by negotiating them team by team. Forget this URO stuff. Let's table the real books and get to negotiating."

Tom

i agree - " the real books "

 

[SuperUnknown]

This is one way to split these revenues, but Levitt didn't do it that way. He used attendance. It isn't just the luxury boxes where it is problematical. What about the advertising? Suppose a week long boat show draws 250,000 people. Or a dog show fills the rink for a week.

The luxury boxes may be empty and the boards have been taken down and the scoreboard isn't showing anything, but a person attending one of these events is allocated the same slice of advertising and luxury box money as a fan at the hockey game? Revenues is a much better way to do it in my opinion, but the more important point is that however you do it, the answer is very likely wrong. One formula can't fit 30 different businesses.

Nobody outside the company knows how the Canucks and GM Place revenues are now split. When the team-rink relationship was structured, Orca Bay allocated 100% of the corporate sponsorship and luxury box revenue to the rink. This may have changed by now, but if not, the league actually makes McCaw report more money to the URO than Canuck books show.

On the other hand, the Oilers get all of the luxury box revenue at Rexall Place because they built the boxes. When they report according to Levitt, they report less money than they actually take in. Perhaps it all comes out in the wash, but that would be a very surprising result. Everybody takes more or less than is reflected in the URO. The designated hockey revenues are a formula in a situation where a formula can't reflect reality.

If the NHLPA wanted to get a handle on real hockey revenues (or if Levitt wanted to do his job right) they have to examine the books of the team and all the affiliated businesses. They have to estimate a different percentage rink to rink because they are all different. In some of the Canadian rinks, almost all the advertising and luxury box revenue is generated by the hockey team. In Toronto, the Raptors would get a big chunk, but not nearly as big as the Leafs. In American markets the number would a lot smaller, perhaps only 20% of the advertising value if they share a facility with a successful basketball team.

If I was Goodenow, I might accept a relationship between revenues and salaries as long as the owners tabled the actual audited financial statements of each team and each affiliated entity along with the arena lease and broadcasting contracts. Then negotiate hockey revenues on a team by team basis in light of the specific business model and try to get to a realistic picture. Both sides can hire some full time people who work all year round tracking revenues in 30 different organizations.

It may not be entirely practical and it is expensive, but it is a reasonable way to do it. Set up an ongoing NHL-NHLPA committee that has complete and open access to the books of all NHL teams and the books of all affiliated businesses. The committee responsibility is to identify, on an ongoing basis, the hockey revenues.

What if Goodenow offered to do that. If he said, "Fine. We wiill link salaries to revenues on a sliding scale. The higher the revenues the larger our percentage. And we decide what hockey revenues are by negotiating them team by team. Forget this URO stuff. Let's table the real books and get to negotiating."

Tom

For once we agree... partly.

About the way to allocate revenues, what I said was the most intuitive for me at first sight. However, I'd have to verify if attendance wouldn't be a more accurate way to allocate the revenues. Sounds possible.

Anyway, regardless of how they currently calculate it, I think that at least the NHLPA ought to verify if it wouldn't be possible to tie revenues and expenses if they can specify accounting principles to be used in the calculation. However, at this point, I don't think that the NHLPA cares at all about this possibility. They just want the free lunch to continue.

 

[mr gib]

For once we agree... partly.

About the way to allocate revenues, what I said was the most intuitive for me at first sight. However, I'd have to verify if attendance wouldn't be a more accurate way to allocate the revenues. Sounds possible.

Anyway, regardless of how they currently calculate it, I think that at least the NHLPA ought to verify if it wouldn't be possible to tie revenues and expenses if they can specify accounting principles to be used in the calculation. However, at this point, I don't think that the NHLPA cares at all about this possibility. They just want the free lunch to continue.

that bit about the free lunch - just doesn't wash -

 

[Motown Beatdown]

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.

I know what you mean i'm so sick of seeing Toronto and New York compete for the Cup every year. Oh wait, never mind. Dont forget the Blues or the Stars, the Wings and Avs lately. How about those Flyers?

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Anyway, regardless of how they currently calculate it, I think that at least the NHLPA ought to verify if it wouldn't be possible to tie revenues and expenses if they can specify accounting principles to be used in the calculation.

Not good enough. The issue has nothing to do with accounting principles. When we are dealing with Orca Bay in Vancouver accounting principles can put 100% of the shared revenue in either the team or the rink. There is no real answer.

When calculating rink revenues to allocate to the Vancouver Canucks, the NHLPA could quite reasonably claim that 90% of the sponsorship and luxury boxes should be deemed hockey revenue. In the case of the Los Angeles Kings, the NHLPA might have to settle for 25% of the advertising revenue in the rink. All board revenue should surely be deemed hockey revenue. And so on. Concession revenues probably does split out best on attendance. Because the affiliate is often a media or cable outlet, broadcast revenues have to be negotiated team by team too.

Both the NHL and NHLPA would have to come to thoroughly understand the workings of all 30 businesses and negotiate a real revenue number based on each team's reality. It will take thousands of man hours to negotiate and set up the tracking system, but once done it won't need to be changed unless the team's circumstances change.

If I was Goodenow, I think I would announce a willingness to do exactly that. They aren't willing to divide up revenues based on any formulas invented for the NBA or by Arthur Levitt. They will negotiate the revenues determined on a team by team assessment and based on the actual books of the actual teams. No more of this "fill out the form according to the URO formula" stuff.

The real stuff, team by team. If the state of New Jersey is paying the Devils $3 million a year as part of a deal to prevent them from moving, it counts. If MSG gets a $15 million tax credit from the city of New York, 10% of it might be considered Ranger revenues. If the Gaylord Entertainment Centre is subsidising the team through the arena lease, the subsidy is hockey revenue. And so on.

I don't think the teams would do it, but at worst Goodenow regains the high ground and basically negates Levitt. "We want to negotiate revenues team by team based on the individual situations so we get a picture of hockey revenues that is close to reality. The teams show us their real books and won't negotiate real revenues. They want us to negotiate one formula that pretends to capture real numbers of thirty different teams. That's impractical for us because we can't possibly tell what is fair. If we are going to tie revenues to salaries, we calculate revenues properly team by team based on the actual team books."

At best, the owners surprise me and decide complete transparency is also in their best interests and go along.

Tom

 

[struckmatch]

You know the biggest thing that annoys me about the NHLPA, is that Ted Saskin, and Bob Goodenow continuously display that they don't believe that Revenues and Expenses are connected very closely.

Any business runs by how much they make, in relation to how much they spend. It's that damn simple, as Brian Burke has stated many times during this lockout, if the NHLPA continue to dismiss the fact that revenues and expenses in this league, just like in any other business are DIRECTLY related, then they are insulting the game, and the fans of the game by assuming we're all stupid and can't see right through their pathetic attempt at playing dumb.

Whether the NHLPA likes it or not, Revenues and Expenses(Team Revenues and Player Salaries, as well as other expenses in running a professional franchise) are intertwined.

 

[Chelios]

I know what you mean i'm so sick of seeing Toronto and New York compete for the Cup every year. Oh wait, never mind. Dont forget the Blues or the Stars, the Wings and Avs lately. How about those Flyers?

Are you honestly trying to tell me that it is just as easy to ice a playoff team with a $35 million payroll than it is with a $60 million payroll? I never said that teams with low payrolls can`t make the playoffs or even challenge for the cup, nor did I say that every team with a high payroll will contend for the cup. I am simply saying that it is much much harder for a team with a low payroll to contend for the cup than it is for teams with high payrolls, anyone who says other wise is living in a dream world. Some form of salary cap will even the playing field.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Are you honestly trying to tell me that it is just as easy to ice a playoff team with a $35 million payroll than it is with a $60 million payroll? I never said that teams with low payrolls can`t make the playoffs or even challenge for the cup, nor did I say that every team with a high payroll will contend for the cup. I am simply saying that it is much much harder for a team with a low payroll to contend for the cup than it is for teams with high payrolls, anyone who says other wise is living in a dream world. Some form of salary cap will even the playing field.

has it been easy for TOR and NYR and PHI and DAL and STL to compete for the cup ? sure doesnt like they have had an easy road since they havent done anything.

the evidence is overwhelming proof that payroll disparity has nothing to do with on ice chances.

dr

 

[struckmatch]

^ Has "Nothing" to do with stanley cup chances? I wouldn't go that far, payroll and your chances of winning are definetely related, maybe not to the extent of how we've seen it.

Although what I think is a real problem, is that the teams that can have higher payrolls can make runs at star players, and the lower payroll teams can't, whether this breeds success is somewhat irrelevant, the point is, every team should have an equal chance at acquiring any player on the market, barring other individual franchise circumstances.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

^ Has "Nothing" to do with stanley cup chances? I wouldn't go that far, payroll and your chances of winning are definetely related, maybe not to the extent of how we've seen it.

Although what I think is a real problem, is that the teams that can have higher payrolls can make runs at star players, and the lower payroll teams can't, whether this breeds success is somewhat irrelevant, the point is, every team should have an equal chance at acquiring any player on the market, barring other individual franchise circumstances.

how cliche

1) good teams cost lots of money .. so high payroll teams win ...
2) teams like DET and NJD and COL have been the dominant teams and have built their teams the right way. It costs money to field a well built team.
3) what signing has a large payroll successful team done that has affected any smaller teams.. Name even one.

DR

 

[Chelios]

has it been easy for TOR and NYR and PHI and DAL and STL to compete for the cup ? sure doesnt like they have had an easy road since they havent done anything.

the evidence is overwhelming proof that payroll disparity has nothing to do with on ice chances.

dr

How conveniant that you leave out teams like NJD, DET and COL. I know you have said that they built their team "the right way", but that still doesn`t change the fact that they have extremely high payrolls. However even using only the teams you mentioned your argument still doesn`t hold water since only the Rangers have been out of the playoffs for any length of time. All of the other teams have made the playoffs almost every year in recent memory, with Dallas winning the cup.

As I have said before, and you seem to choose not to acknowledge, higher payroll teams are not guarenteed to challenge for the cup, or even to make the playoffs, but anyone that says they don`t have an advantage is being completely unreasonable.

 

[struckmatch]

how cliche

1) good teams cost lots of money .. so high payroll teams win ...
2) teams like DET and NJD and COL have been the dominant teams and have built their teams the right way. It costs money to field a well built team.
3) what signing has a large payroll successful team done that has affected any smaller teams.. Name even one.

DR

Of course its affecting the smaller payroll teams, BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO SIGN PLAYERS MAKING THAT TYPE OF MONEY. So, instead of the smaller payroll teams having a shot at really improving their team, they don't have that option, they either have to settle for a smaller upgrade, or do nothing.

I know the PA will argue that this may be a market problem, and that these franchises such as NSH, CAR, and FLA just aren't good hockey markets, but whatever the source of the problem, the owners want it fixed. For teams like EDM, and CAL it isn't a market problem, its finances, and to even the playing field you've got to do something.

Large payroll teams, not only signing UFA's, but also via trade are always effecting the smaller budget teams, because the better players in this league are just too expensive. You can't only look at UFA signings, and then dismiss every other aspect, you have to think about qualifying your own star RFA's that will look around, and demand what another similar player is making, and what about teams that draft well, at some point, Rick Nash, Ilya Kovalchuk, and Alexander Ovechkin will ask for Forsberg, Sakic, and Lidstrom type money, then what do the teams do?

You're only talking about UFA signings, and thats completely one-sided. UFA signings is a big part of what causes financial trouble for some teams, but for most teams its their RFA's, and how much salary they can take on in trades is what really hurts. We all know that just signing the most expensive UFA's on the market won't win you anything, but developing your team through good drafting, and smart trades is also greatly affected by the disparity in payrolls from team to team.

 

[Chelios]

2) teams like DET and NJD and COL have been the dominant teams and have built their teams the right way. It costs money to field a well built team.

The problem with the current CBA is only a select few teams can build a team "the right way" as you call it. Do you think Calgary could pay Forsberg, Sakic and Blake? Or Edmonton could pay Brodeur, Stevens and Neidermeyer? How about Montreal holding on to Yzerman, Lidstrom and Shanahan? Right now Ottawa is "building the right way" but do you honestly think that they can hold on to the likes of Hossa, Redden, Havlat, Spezza and Chara in a couple of years if nothing changes?

 

[chriss_co]

This is in response to those fans who think the appearances of anaheim, calgary, carolina and washington in the cup finals as opposed to toronto, rangers, philly and st. louis is an accurate measure of competitiveness.

Its quite simple. 1 year of 'success' (not really cuz they all didn't win the cup) doesn't mean a team is competitive. I wouldn't call these teams exceptions either. Every year you will have a team who over achieves their expected capability.

If you ask yourself today, who over the last 5-10 years have legitimately COMPETITIVE clubs... ie.. clubs who win consistently... clubs who make the playoffs consistently.. being competitive isn't who makes the the stanley cup finals because only 2 teams can accomplish that every year. Measure the level of competitiveness by the 16 teams that make the playoffs. Then judge which teams are competitive.

The CBA isn't working right now because making the playoffs once every 7 years (like calgary did) is not the definition of competitive.

If you look at the numbers, higher salary clubs have a better chance of making the post-season (and thats where you get your big bucks in terms of playoff revenues).

So stop using these comparisons of lower salary clubs attaining more success than high salary clubs because it is not true.

The only exception I see in this 'big' salary structure is the fact that the Rangers can't even make the playoffs. They are the anomaly.

When you see low salary teams making the playoffs more often than high salary teams then come to me with ur arguement about the league's status.

 

[PecaFan]

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 ?

Right. The low salary teams like Ottawa and Vancouver will be forced to break up their teams and get rid of players to meet the cap, while the high salary teams like the Leafs and Rangers will be able to scoop up talent and *add* salary?

Care to check your math?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

The problem with the current CBA is only a select few teams can build a team "the right way" as you call it. Do you think Calgary could pay Forsberg, Sakic and Blake? Or Edmonton could pay Brodeur, Stevens and Neidermeyer? How about Montreal holding on to Yzerman, Lidstrom and Shanahan? Right now Ottawa is "building the right way" but do you honestly think that they can hold on to the likes of Hossa, Redden, Havlat, Spezza and Chara in a couple of years if nothing changes?

how come the market of Denver, Colorado can support the cost of a winning team and markets like Edmonton and Calgary, Alberta can not ?

COL and DET can afford their players because before they got super expensive, they had dozens of playrounds as revenue to continue the investment in those players.

the reason EDM has to trade Weight is because htey didnt win with him and therefore could not support his level of salary.

seems right to me.

dr

 

[Canadian Time]

The CBA isn't working right now because making the playoffs once every 7 years (like calgary did) is not the definition of competitive.

That's your problem right there, you actually think Calgary's problems the last 7 years are a result of the CBA. The Flames have been quite possibly the worst franchise in the league at drafting, developing players and trading for the last decade.

Finally, Sutter seems to have pointed the ship in the right direction. A new CBA can't help inept mangement. If it can, it shouldn't. The Flames have not been able to develop hardly any young players for a decade. That has nothing to do with the definition of competition. Flames management has blamed their incompetance on the CBA and the media and fans have gone along with it.

 

[BLONG7]

how come the market of Denver, Colorado can support the cost of a winning team and markets like Edmonton and Calgary, Alberta can not ?

COL and DET can afford their players because before they got super expensive, they had dozens of playrounds as revenue to continue the investment in those players.

the reason EDM has to trade Weight is because htey didnt win with him and therefore could not support his level of salary.

seems right to me.

dr

Comparing US big markets vs Canadian markets... US Currency exchange would be one BIG reason!!! Makes for a very unlevel playing field for the Canadian teams...

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Comparing US big markets vs Canadian markets... ...

Denver is a big market ? There are more hockey fans in Colorado than in ALberta ? Even so, in Calgary, the Flames are the big team in town, in COL the Avs must be like 4th, 3rd at best, right ?

so ... how come CGY cant afford to pay its best players if it had a dozen or so rounds of playoff success to build from (like COL did before it had to pay 40m to 4 players).

dr

 

[djhn579]

Denver is a big market ? There are more hockey fans in Colorado than in ALberta ? Even so, in Calgary, the Flames are the big team in town, in COL the Avs must be like 4th, 3rd at best, right ?

so ... how come CGY cant afford to pay its best players if it had a dozen or so rounds of playoff success to build from (like COL did before it had to pay 40m to 4 players).

dr

Didn't Edmonton have many rounds of playoff success before they couldn't afford to keep Gretzky, Messier, Fuhr and the rest of their to players?