An open challenge to "owner supporters"

[YellHockey*]

the players are drawing 75% of revenues in salary, at a rate that is climbing rapidly,

False on both points.

The players' salaries do not take 75% of revenue. And the players' salaries are not climbing rapidly. Player salaries have leveled off in the past few years.

 

[Benji Frank]

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.

I don't think I said anywhere that "it" was illegal ... whatever "it" is. I guess I should have been more clear in my post. The current situation is not the players fault. That's all. It's the owner's mentality that "We gotta pay the player" that's caused this whole mess. The owner's are fighting for a system that will protect themselves from themselves.

I used to be in favour of a cap. I still am but not at the 31 mill the owners are after. When you hear Fergie saying the Leafs will still make money with a payroll of over 60 mill & they're already selling out every game, I don't think the Leafs owners will lower the price of tickets to give back their extra 29 mill in profit!!! The Canucks made 25 mill last year with a payroll of over 40 mill (I'm going from memory when the sales talk was rumoured!) The Canucks owners won't drop ticket prices accordingly to return the 9 mill plus they'll save on salaries!!! I think a cap is necessary, but I also think the owners should look more closely at revenue sharing ... if they want a 30 team league, they're not going to have 30 = revenue streams or even close to equal revenue streams. Maybe they should look into a visitors fee & pay a % of the home team's gate to the visitng team? Also, maybe look into somehow splitting up any local TV and radio contracts. I'm sure the Lightning will be part of most TV packages this year. The owners should be compensated for what they've put together.....

Vancouver is not a big market ... they're a CDN team to boot!!! I'm guessing their payroll was right around the average ... 1.8 mill per player or 43 mill. If they can make 25 mill off that, what are the other teams doing wrong that they're 35 mill behind Vancouver?

My suggestion would be

1) along the lines of a salary cap @ around 45 mill, or a stiff luxury tax at around the same level. Any penalties at year end should be split somehow between a club that operates within the cap & the players that played for those teams. IE -> if Pittsburg is awarded 7 mill at year end, the owners should get say 3 mill and the other 4 mill gets distributed to the players who were paid by the Penguins on some sort of pro-rated basis.

2) Visitor Fees as a way of revenue sharing. And as mentioned above TV & radio contracts split up in some sort of fashion.

I'm probably babbling at this stage and totally off topic from where I started out!!

 

[Seachd]

False on both points.

The players' salaries do not take 75% of revenue.

Yes they do. I don't even think Goodenow's denied this one.

And the players' salaries are not climbing rapidly. Player salaries have leveled off in the past few years.

Guess what? Levelling off when teams are still losing money doesn't make it any better. (That's if you even believe they are levelling off. I don't.)

 

[hockeytown9321]

Says who?

the NHLPA.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

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.

fair enough, we can discuss the merits of the players vs owners positions forever.

however, no matter what you interpret the results to be, the proposal is not status quo. there is no luxury tax in the NHL right now and there is no revenue sharing.

if the owners dont feel the offer will provide the right results, why dont they negotiate the #'s ?

if TSN was negotiating your new contract and said to you "we want you to anchor the 3am Sports update because of (insert problem" and you said "i will negotiate any sort of mechanism to help you solve (insert problem), except for a solution that includes me anchoring", period end of story .. would it not behoove them to negotiate with you another method of solving their problem AND keeping you on staff.

dr

 

[hockeytown9321]

Yes they do. I don't even think Goodenow's denied this one.



Guess what? Levelling off when teams are still losing money doesn't make it any better. (That's if you even believe they are levelling off. I don't.)

There are serious questions as to what is included in the NHL's definition of player costs.

 

[Guy Caballero]

False on both points.

The players' salaries do not take 75% of revenue. And the players' salaries are not climbing rapidly. Player salaries have leveled off in the past few years.

No they haven't. The only "levelling off" we've seen was during this off-season, and only because people were scared. Other than that it's been business as usual.

 

[Seachd]

however, no matter what you interpret the results to be, the proposal is not status quo. there is no luxury tax in the NHL right now and there is no revenue sharing.

You're splitting hairs, and not very well. What matters is the result. The result of the NHLPA's proposal is nothing. It doesn't help the current economic situation in the NHL that's out of control. In other words, it doesn't change anything. Therefore, status quo.

 

[triggrman]

Anything less than an average of 1.5M is not worth mentioning. So all taxes, caps or whatever should not exceed 36M for a 24 man roster.

 

[tantalum]

#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.

It does nothing to address the underlying issue for the league which is that salaries have spiralled to a dangerous level and something needs to be done to stop it from happening again. Tying salaries to revenues and having a loophole free CBA is the only true way to prevent it from happening again.

The fault of the owners? absolutely but the past is the past and no matter whose fault it is it needs to be fixed. That requires linking revenues with the overall salary level of the league. It means revenue sharing and effective caps such that all owners can be profitable. The league does not have a guaranteed TV contract for the next x number of years like the NFL and NBA. In the NFL the TV contract dwarfs the gate revenue. The NHL is nearly completely gate driven and as such needs even more assurance in the CBA that the business as a whole is going to do well in the future.

The players offered a rollback of salaries. A decent rollback as a starting position but not near what it needs to be. But more to the point an immediate rollback is not the primary issue as a rollback doesn't give the assurances the league needs for the future. It stems the tide for a year or two nothing more. A token luxury tax does nothing...a luxury tax with teeth MIGHT do something (along the lines of Burke's usggestion) but is not a guarantee. A minimum cap and maximum cap that floats with revenues is a good solution. The maximum cap can be negotiated to lie between the $1.3 mil the owners want as an average salary and the $1.7 the players have offered. Heck use it as the cap range...a minimum of $30 mil and maximum of $38 mil or something similar. Revenues increase the minimum and maximum ranges increase. The fundamental issue is tying salaries to revenues so that the profitability of the league can be predictable and spelling it out in a CBA so that the players have a say in what the actual numbers are. If they don't get their heads wrapped around a cap the owners will go another route next summer rather than deal with the NHLPA.

 

[YellHockey*]

Yes they do. I don't even think Goodenow's denied this one.

How can Goodenow deny something that has never been claimed by anyone other then yourself?

 

[Seachd]

How can Goodenow deny something that has never been claimed by anyone other then yourself?

Huh? Have you been paying attention to this situation at all?

 

[Sammy*]

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.

Bingo.
And by not agreeing to a cap, the players are trying to economically coerce the NHL into blessing a system that would cause the teams to lose millions.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

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.

you are right, BUT if the owners want thsi group of players and not a lower level group, then they need to negotiate from a position that these players will accept.

these players have said "as a group, we wont play in your league under a salary cap". the owners now must decide if they want these players or another level of player to play in their league.

it works both ways.

dr

 

[YellHockey*]

Huh? Have you been paying attention to this situation at all?

Have you? Please provide a link that backs up your statement.

 

[Seachd]

Have you? Please provide a link that backs up your statement.

Here's one, for starters. Listening to any of the dozens of interviews is another way. Trust me, I didn't just make this up, and either did Guy Caballero.

 

[Guy Caballero]

I think a cap is necessary, but I also think the owners should look more closely at revenue sharing ... if they want a 30 team league, they're not going to have 30 = revenue streams or even close to equal revenue streams.

I don't think revenue sharing would work in the NHL. In the NFL it works because they have revenue streams that are not related to gate receipts. The NHL doesn't have that. If I were the Leafs, I wouldn't want to give millions of dollars from my gate to the Anaheim Mighty Ducks so they could sign big-name free agents.

Each team in the NHL should be able to ice a competitive team on their own, without the help of others. A cap would enable this. If some teams get rich because of the lower operating costs, good for their shareholders. But those higher revenues shouldn't determine who has the best teams every year. Let baseball use that system. It's a crap sport anyway.

 

[habitual_hab]

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

It is my understanding that a franchisor or franchisee cannot impose on the employees working for the franchisee anything that infringes on their ability to negotiate freely in the labour market UNLESS it that "anything" has been negotiated as part of a collective bargaining agreement.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[YellHockey*]

Here's one, for starters. Listening to any of the dozens of interviews is another way. Trust me, I didn't just make this up, and either did Guy Caballero.

I don't see anything in that link that says that 75% of revenues go to players salaries. Please provide a quote if it does to prove me wrong.

 

[Guy Caballero]

you are right, BUT if the owners want thsi group of players and not a lower level group, then they need to negotiate from a position that these players will accept.

these players have said "as a group, we wont play in your league under a salary cap". the owners now must decide if they want these players or another level of player to play in their league.

it works both ways.

dr

If that truly was the case, I'd happily say "bring on the scabs." It's been nice knowing you Sakic, Yzerman, Pronger and company. Hope you enjoy playing out the string in Europe. And when they did re-open minus the NHLPA, who do you think Crosby and all the other kids would play for? The Swedish Elite League? Maybe they'd choose to park cars for a living instead?

The owners can ride this out. The players have to move next.

 

[Chaos2k7]

The thing is there is no agreement.

If they want to play in the NHL, here are the rules, if not, have fun finding the money in Russia or beyond.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

You're splitting hairs, and not very well. What matters is the result. The result of the NHLPA's proposal is nothing. It doesn't help the current economic situation in the NHL that's out of control. In other words, it doesn't change anything. Therefore, status quo.

thats not the point .. the point is its not status quo and by claiming it is they are falsley representing the negotiations with the sole intention of winning over fans who dont know any better.

you see, you may understand the context of "staus quo", but the general public wont. this is spin doctering at its finest and makes me mad when the media perpetuates the spin.

dr

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

If that truly was the case, I'd happily say "bring on the scabs." It's been nice knowing you Sakic, Yzerman, Pronger and company. Hope you enjoy playing out the string in Europe. And when they did re-open minus the NHLPA, who do you think Crosby and all the other kids would play for? The Swedish Elite League? Maybe they'd choose to park cars for a living instead?

The owners can ride this out. The players have to move next.

fine by me too. then stop negotiating and tell the players you dont want them, period.

this group of players has drawn a line in the sand and they wont play in the NHL for a cap. find another group and it might be a different story. guess it depends on who the owners want on the ice.

dr

 

[Seachd]

thats not the point .. the point is its not status quo and by claiming it is they are falsley representing the negotiations with the sole intention of winning over fans who dont know any better.

you see, you may understand the context of "staus quo", but the general public wont. this is spin doctering at its finest and makes me mad when the media perpetuates the spin.

It doesn't matter who or who doesn't understand "status quo". I'll explain it for them now - nothing changes with the NHLPA's proposal. If you want to believe that means it's completely different than now, fine. But that's not how it is.

 

[Seachd]

I don't see anything in that link that says that 75% of revenues go to players salaries. Please provide a quote if it does to prove me wrong.

All you have to do is read the link. I assume that's why you asked for it.

"I would respectfully suggest that any collective bargaining agreement that results in 75% of your revenues going to the players is a flawed collective bargaining agreement."