An open challenge to "owner supporters"

[habitual_hab]

Which part of a cap restricts a market place, which part takes away negotiation of a cotract worth multimillion dollars, I don't see your point. We too own a business, we don't negotiate salaries, we have a cap on what we pay people so we know that we can keep running a succsefull business.

Stipulating a given wage in the (NHL)franchise agreement reduces the level of competition in the labor market (basically, when every franchise offers the same wage, or offers a wage up to a certain level, the competition in the labor market is reduced because there is an artificial restriction on the wages). This is absolutely and without a doubt a violation of the Sherman Anti-trust Act.

Any kind of restrictions on competition - in this case competition in the labour market) is made illegal unless it is passed through the collective bargaining process first.

For example, the 1994-95 MLB players strike didn't end until a federal judge ruled that the baseball owners engaged in unfair labour practices and could not unilaterally impose a salary cap on players.

 

[Benji Frank]

Go outside your house get a job, and you will understand how the world works. There caps, or cellings, and floors everywhere.

If you apply to McDonald today they will say 5.50 a hour, you cannot negotiate it and demand for more money, like the NHL players do, they demand to be paid and the owners have no choice, and to keep fans coming they have to shell out. They hold out and sit on there ass if they don't get there big money deals, even though the owners offer them what they fell they are worth, just how Goodenow describes the current system.

NFL is the best league, the players make a ton of money, they have a salary cap, the Arizona Cardinals suck, yet they still make money.

Maybe Mcd's won't give you a raise, but if you're a decent cook, Earl's might offer you $8.00/hr to come to their kitchen..... All you gotta do is give a couple of weeks notice. Once a player signs his contract, he's stuck with it for the duration ... why wouldn't he sit on his butt waiting for the right offer if he knows the Big Market club next state just offerred double to a comparable player?? There's only so many Pat Tillman's to go around. The rest of us will follow the bigger number as long as we know it's being gotten.......

 

[Chaos2k7]

And that is exactly why a salary cap is needed. The Toronto's, Phily's, Colorado's and Detriot's etc. couldn't give a crap about the rest of the league. But they will support the cap system because in the end they still make more money.

Owners need to protect themselves from the guys that have more money then brains, with the reasoning, because Tom Hicks paid it...



Even with payrolls the way they are those types of teams need to have LONG playoff runs just to turn a profit. The system cannot bear this kind of expenditures any longer and the owners have basically said they want a system where if someone screws up it only screws their team.

It's called a smart business practice.

 

[YellHockey*]

Sorry but the name we use now: Canadian Border Services or CBS,

Isn't it CBSA? Or at least that's what it says here: http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/


Two tries and you still can't get the name of your employer correct. And we should take your opinion seriously because....?

 

[ceber]

... morally wrong it is for one person to dictate to another the amount of money they can make in a (erstwhile) free market economy. I'd particularly be amused by any Republicans who want to take up the position that the league has the right to intervene in a free marketplace and regulate it. Please, make my day.

The expired CBA certainly wasn't a free market at all, so why do people keep bringing that term up. The NHLPA doesn't want a free market, do they? I think the NHLPA wants to put more controls on the marketplace that the owners do. A truly free marketplace would mean no guaranteed contracts, no guaranteed increases, and no restricted player movement. Everyone's a UFA, and everyone can be fired at any time for pretty much any reason. I believe under that system you'd see many player salaries drop hard, and drop fast. A few guys would make out like kings, much like the real world today. A very small percentage of the working public makes most of the money, and the vast majority of people are paid as little as possible. The whole point of unions is to protect the worker from the often cruel reality that a free marketplace creates.

 

[Chaos2k7]

You're right and when I answer the phone:

Good Morning, you've reached Canadian Border Services (or, Canadian Customs), how may I help you?

10 out of 10 people hang up because I don't say agency or state the official website right?



That's really a reach.

I could care less, try talking about the topic at hand, because as far as I have read you don't even have an opinion on this topic. Can't seem to find it anywhere.... Hmmmm... Sour Grapes? Couldn't hack the 9 week course in Rigeau?

 

[Go Flames Go*]

Maybe Mcd's won't give you a raise, but if you're a decent cook, Earl's might offer you $8.00/hr to come to their kitchen..... All you gotta do is give a couple of weeks notice. Once a player signs his contract, he's stuck with it for the duration ... why wouldn't he sit on his butt waiting for the right offer if he knows the Big Market club next state just offerred double to a comparable player?? There's only so many Pat Tillman's to go around. The rest of us will follow the bigger number as long as we know it's being gotten.......

It is not illegal, they are setting a celling for salaries, not individual player salaries. THe players are free to negotiate any type of contract they want that fits within a teams cap space. Currently there is no market place in the NHL, and there never will be, because if there is the players are gonna go on strike. There are ways around a cap such as upfront signing bonuses, the players will not starve, poor Brain McCabe wont be able to have a decent living with a reduced salary from 5 million to 3 million.

A Cap works in the NBA and NFL effectivley, its harsh, its fair, and there is competitvness and healthy teams for the most part in the NBA. Obviously if the players want to keep continuing being greedy there will be less jobs, less money, and pretty soon its gonna all fall apart. So whats better have a gaurnteed salary of over 50% of team revenues or face a uncertian future, wouldnt everyone in the world be happy if they had a gaurnteed salary of excess of 1.3 million person season, as opposed to knowing if they will have a job tommorow. If teams fold players are gonna out of jobs, and where do they go from there.

This is a fight the player will not and cannot win, its loose loose for them, no one, well the few dumbasses actually side with them, and they are not being paid right now which is great. Its up to them right now continue with the players running the league dicating there salary, or have a even playing field with gaurnteed money for years and years to come, and possibly more, people seem to forget the cap will increase as revenues increase.

 

[BobMckenzie]

which is apparently most of you as all I ever read on this board is how the owners are not to blame and it's all the fault of the big bad greedy players... blah blah blah. Anyway, you folks assert that a salary cap of some kind (I read many of your posts saying things like "players shouldn't make more than a million a year.." and crap like that) is a reasonable solution or even a fair option to 'solving' the current CBA issues, which it isn't. So, I have a simple challenge for you: Find any other profession in the United States (the NHL is, I believe, based in New York and is technically an American enterprise) where pay rates are artificially capped by a governing entity. Find even one. Find any profession where the governing body of that profession says a person CANNNOT make more than $xxx,xxx.xx amount per year. I want you guys to know just how unbelievably morally wrong it is for one person to dictate to another the amount of money they can make in a (erstwhile) free market economy. I'd particularly be amused by any Republicans who want to take up the position that the league has the right to intervene in a free marketplace and regulate it. Please, make my day.

I'm not sure this a good example, because sports leagues, by their very nature, are unique animals (that is, an industry where 30 partners try to beat up on each other in every way), but I'll use the auto industry as a comparable.

Ford, GM and Chrysler, for example, are all part of the same industry but they are intense competitors. But the competition is not so intense that they spend to put each other out of business. Most of the employees of the Big Three automakers are union employees of the United Auto Workers. If a production worker at Ford doesn't like his salary at Ford, he can't jump to Chrysler or GM because the salaries are the same there as at Ford.

Each time the UAW collective agreement expires, the union targets one of the companies for a strike or negotiation. When a new CBA is reached with that target, the same terms and conditions are levied across the board at the other two automakers. If that's not a cap, it's damn close to it. At least that's my rudimentary understanding of the process. I could be wrong.

You can call it a cap, you can it a scale, you can call it slotting, call it whatever you want, but when GM, Ford and Chrysler enter into a new CBA, they have a fixed relationship between salaries and revenue. Ownership knows going into it for a fixed period of time exactly how much money they will have to spend on salaries. That, I believe, is the case the NHL is attempting to make.

Now I recognize there are non union employees at each automaker and I never said the comparison was perfect, but as I sat for hours thinking of something in real life that is comparable to the NHL situation, the auto industry was the best I could come up with.

Feel free to pick it apart as I'm sure there are holes, but it's the one that, for me anyway, has some parallels.

Bob McKenzie

 

[Sammy*]

I'm not sure this a good example, because sports leagues, by their very nature, are unique animals (that is, an industry where 30 partners try to beat up on each other in every way), but I'll use the auto industry as a comparable.

Ford, GM and Chrysler, for example, are all part of the same industry but they are intense competitors. But the competition is not so intense that they spend to put each other out of business. Most of the employees of the Big Three automakers are union employees of the United Auto Workers. If a production worker at Ford doesn't like his salary at Ford, he can't jump to Chrysler or GM because the salaries are the same there as at Ford.

Each time the UAW collective agreement expires, the union targets one of the companies for a strike or negotiation. When a new CBA is reached with that target, the same terms and conditions are levied across the board at the other two automakers. If that's not a cap, it's damn close to it. At least that's my rudimentary understanding of the process. I could be wrong.

You can call it a cap, you can it a scale, you can call it slotting, call it whatever you want, but when GM, Ford and Chrysler enter into a new CBA, they have a fixed relationship between salaries and revenue. Ownership knows going into it for a fixed period of time exactly how much money they will have to spend on salaries. That, I believe, is the case the NHL is attempting to make.

Now I recognize there are non union employees at each automaker and I never said the comparison was perfect, but as I sat for hours thinking of something in real life that is comparable to the NHL situation, the auto industry was the best I could come up with.

Feel free to pick it apart as I'm sure there are holes, but it's the one that, for me anyway, has some parallels.

Bob McKenzie

I think a better example is many franchises of all sorts are dictated to by their franchisorrs as to what they can & cant do (ie how much they can sell something for). This is all the NHL is seeking to do.

 

[Go Flames Go*]

^^ Any rumours to report bob?

 

[habitual_hab]

I think a better example is many franchises of all sorts are dictated to by their franchisorrs as to what they can & cant do (ie how much they can sell something for). This is all the NHL is seeking to do.

A Mac's franchisor can dictate pricing to the franchisee (a minimum price in theory) but the franchisor cannot dictate salary rates - which is what the NHL is attempting to do.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Demented, are you a player or a players spouse or parent? Every successful business works with some form of cap or idea of how much money is allotted to employee salaries. .

well thats not quite true... recently i went to my employer and said if you dont give me a 35% wage increase, the competition will.

my employer was more than happy to negotiate with me. there was no artificial system in place that forbid them from doing so. if there was, i would have left and been employed by the competition.

the real world has no cap. you can earn whatever you want, if someone else is willing to pay it. even if you work for a capped union enviroment, you can QUIT and work elsewhere if you can negotiate a salary to your liking. NHL players can not. they are drafted and their rights to work in that industry are controlled.

so what was your point ?

dr

 

[tantalum]

A Mac's franchisor can dictate pricing to the franchisee (a minimum price in theory) but the franchisor cannot dictate salary rates - which is what the NHL is attempting to do.

Yes they can if it's in a collective bargaining agreement with the applicable union. Which is what this whole thing is about.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Bob McKenzie

hi bob,

in your radio dialogue with Trevor LInden today (Sep 23 - Mojo 730 Vancouver) he challenged you why you were calling the players offer "status quo". YOur answer that they havent approached middle ground wasnt satisfactory and immaterial. the fact is the players have NOT offered status quo, they have offered something different from the owners position and also different from status quo. each # in their proposal can be negotiated if the owners chose too.

the players are not offering status quo, whether it is acceptable or not is another debate. i just wish the NHL and the media would stop saying "status quo" because its an outright lie.

dr

 

[habitual_hab]

Yes they can if it's in a collective bargaining agreement with the applicable union. Which is what this whole thing is about.

Thanks. I already knew that but thanks. And it is what this thing is all about. By locking out the players, the NHL is trying to economically coerce the NHLPA into blessing a salary cap system.

 

[habitual_hab]

hi bob,

in your radio dialogue with Trevor LInden today (Sep 23 - Mojo 730 Vancouver) he challenged you why you were calling the players offer "status quo". YOur answer that they havent approached middle ground wasnt satisfactory and ummaterial. the fact is the players have NOT offered status quo, they have offered something different from the owners position and also different from status quo. each # in their proposal can be negotiated if the owners chose too.

the players are not offering status quo, whether it is acceptable or not is another debate. i just wish the NHL and the media would stop saying "status quo" because its an outright lie.

dr

Excellent post! But the media is biased - advertising brings in big bucks.

 

[Sammy*]

A Mac's franchisor can dictate pricing to the franchisee (a minimum price in theory) but the franchisor cannot dictate salary rates - which is what the NHL is attempting to do.

A franchisor can dictate to its franchisees anything it so desires, including salaries, if the franchisor & franchisee agree to that provision.

 

[Seachd]

hi bob,

in your radio dialogue with Trevor LInden today (Sep 23 - Mojo 730 Vancouver) he challenged you why you were calling the players offer "status quo". YOur answer that they havent approached middle ground wasnt satisfactory and immaterial. the fact is the players have NOT offered status quo, they have offered something different from the owners position and also different from status quo. each # in their proposal can be negotiated if the owners chose too.

No difference = status quo. The players' offer will not help the situation, so how is it different from the status quo?

 

[BobMckenzie]

hi bob,

in your radio dialogue with Trevor LInden today (Sep 23 - Mojo 730 Vancouver) he challenged you why you were calling the players offer "status quo". YOur answer that they havent approached middle ground wasnt satisfactory and ummaterial. the fact is the players have NOT offered status quo, they have offered something different from the owners position and also different from status quo. each # in their proposal can be negotiated if the owners chose too.

the players are not offering status quo, whether it is acceptable or not is another debate. i just wish the NHL and the media would stop saying "status quo" because its an outright lie.

dr

Demented, couldn't agree with you less. It's a status quo offer because the forces that were in play to create the salary spiral would remain in place. I'm not going to get into a philosophical argument on the pros and cons of cost certainty etc., but my point to Trevor was this: The 5 per cent rollback the players have proposed is extremely marginal and whatever shortterm setback that would be for the players, it would be quickly offset by a system (a 10 per cent luxury tax on payrolls above $50 million) that would do little or nothing to slow the growth of salaries.

The big spending clubs (New York, Philly, Detroit, Toronto et al) would blow by that tax without even thinking. Yes, that would re-distribute more money to the poorer clubs, more money they would need to spend on salaries to keep up with the big boys. The only effect created here would be that salaries would continue to rise and the poor teams wouldn't be quite as poor, but it would be "status quo." That is, a relatively open market system that would guarantee the players would continue to see their salaries rise. The players can give back nickels and dimes on one-time single digit salary rollback or proposed entry level restrictions (that still allow for the Joe Thornton bonus schedule to exist, which means entry level players can still make millions), but they are and always have been interested in maintaining a system that is "status quo." They say it every day..."we want the owners to be free to decide how much to pay us." That's the system that has existed in the past. That's the system they are fighting to maintain. It is the very definition of status quo.

 

[windowlicker]

Some of the issues here appear to be getting muddied up a bit. This really isn't a question of who is right, who is wrong. Are you for the players, are you for the owners. As a matter of fact, it doesn't even matter what's fair and what's not. The resounding truth remains, for the good of the game, the Players Union needs to lose this one. And the bigger the defeat, the better.

 

[Dazed and Concussed]

What you're forgetting DR is that the players are free to play professional hockey for many other leagues as proven by several current examples. I will use the following example to rebut your argument. If Company X (NHL) is unionized and has a set salary scale (read cap), nothing is stopping an employee going to company Y (Swedish Elite League) . The players still have the opportunity to apply their trade in several other leagues if they don't like the restrictive environment of working under a big bad cap. If I'm an apprentice welder I can work in a Union environment with a set salary scale or I can work for a non-union shop it is my choice. Your argument seems to be based on the players not being able to play anywhere else other than the NHL which is not true. The players choose to play in the NHL because it is the highest paying league but they could still play in another league if they choose to do so.

 

[Guy Caballero]

The 5 per cent rollback the players have proposed is extremely marginal and whatever shortterm setback that would be for the players, it would be quickly offset by a system (a 10 per cent luxury tax on payrolls above $50 million) that would do little or nothing to slow the growth of salaries.

Exactly. The "5% rollback" idea is so stupid it's insulting. It's like rolling a boulder 5% back up the mountain as it's hurtling down towards you.

If the NHLPA truly wants a "free market" where the owners dictate how much players can make, players should accept that they can be fired for poor performance, just like any CEO. They players want all of the rewards with none of the risks. How anyone could side with them is beyond me.

The players are not entitled to any percentage of the profits, because they've put nothing up themselves. Sure, they've devoted years to training, money for equipment, etc., but guess what—so does every other professional out there.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Exactly. The "5% rollback" idea is so stupid it's insulting. It's like rolling a boulder 5% back up the mountain as it's hurtling down towards you.

#1: The 5% rollback is 5% of $1.5 billion, or $75 million. This $75 million is 33% of the league's losses last year.

#2: The 5% figure is negotiable.

 

[degroat*]

#2: The 5% figure is negotiable.

Says who?

 

[Guy Caballero]

#1: The 5% rollback is 5% of $1.5 billion, or $75 million. This $75 million is 33% of the league's losses last year.

#2: The 5% figure is negotiable.

My point is that when you look at the current inflation rate of NHL salaries, the result of the last CBA, that rollback means diddly squat. Sure, that might cover some of their losses from last year, but what about 5 years from now? Do you really think the rollback will continue and the rapid inflation will come to a halt? I don't.

The bottom line is that if the league has lost 300 mil and the players are drawing 75% of revenues in salary, at a rate that is climbing rapidly, the players on the whole are simply making too much money. They're killing the golden goose, and they don't care, because they're getting rich. They're sinking the entire league because of their greed and they still have apologists out there. Unbelievable.