Another Lockout

[nofehr]

It's incredible how some people will use an argument to bash the owners but don't see how the same argument applies to the players as well...

- 'owners are boning the players by not abiding by the contacts they've signed' - um, the players signed those contracts too. They absolutely knew that there was a possibility that they would lose money to escrow.

- 'owners are trying to milk every penny out of the players' - players do the exact same thing. Holding out because some team offers them $56 million instead of $60 million is asinine and greedy.

I do agree that there doesn't appear to be any good reason for a lockout this time around, but as another poster said - I wouldn't put it past the owners or the players to put something else on the table that becomes a deal breaker.

 

[Eisen]

The moment the Packers start losing money they will have to look at alternative means to return to profitability. The organisation cannot run a deficit for long, so yes, a profit is to be expected especially in the case of the Packers. The whole reason the packers sold worthless shares was to raise capital to operate the business...

And the owners won't pocket that profit.

 

[Gaylord Q Tinkledink]

They are allowed. If they cant afford it thats their problem. Thats just life. Some people can afford more than others.

Should people who work hard and have kids but like big houses not be allowed to live in 5000 square foot mansions because its going to make them worry about money later on?

Should people who work hard and have kids but like nice cars not be allowed to drive ferrarris because its going to make them worry about money later on?

Go to an AHL or CHL game if you cant afford the NHL.

If the CHL labour dispute case every goes so those players are played a base salary, the cost will go up there and likely rather high.


Price goes up, people can't afford it who cares am I right ?

Maybe you make great money and good for you, but the way the NHL operates it's going to easily put tickets out of the reach.

The way it's going, it will likely come to a point where you yourself will sit there and go "f***, it's too expensive to go to a game.... f*** that guy from 35 years ago was right, it did get to me"

 

[joe dirte]

If the CHL labour dispute case every goes so those players are played a base salary, the cost will go up there and likely rather high.


Price goes up, people can't afford it who cares am I right ?

Maybe you make great money and good for you, but the way the NHL operates it's going to easily put tickets out of the reach.

The way it's going, it will likely come to a point where you yourself will sit there and go "****, it's too expensive to go to a game.... **** that guy from 35 years ago was right, it did get to me"

Supply and demand..... if i cant afford it in 35 years the so be it. Its because too many other people are willing to pay more. Thats my choice.

 

[Finnish your Czech]

Complaining about the escrow is pretty silly. A player that has a $6.5 million salary, but has to pay $1 million in escrow would likely only be making $5.5 million if there was a system that didn't have escrow (all else equal).

It's like complaining about taxes. You see the taxes line on your income statement and you say "f*** the government how DARE they take MY hard earned money away from me".

I also don't think there will be a lockout. Complaining about small things like escrow, contract terms and Olympics is such a small deal compared to the major pieces of the last two lockouts (salary cap and changing the 57/43 split to 50/50). If the players or owners are trying to increase that 50/50 split then we might see a lockout, but I doubt that happens.

 

[Gaylord Q Tinkledink]

Supply and demand..... if i cant afford it in 35 years the so be it. Its because too many other people are willing to pay more. Thats my choice.

Could be just Ottawa, as that's my closest NHL team, but I know a lot who dont go to games because of the cost. Granted, there is travel(about an hour) and there's almost always tickets available (except Montreal and Toronto I believe)

That's going to be a bigger thing as salaries continue to grow faster than the demand.

 

[HABitual Fan]

I think the more interesting thing will be how the NHLPA will decide to deal with the trend of the RFA contracts. I expect that the larger group of members that do not fall into the category of the high priced RFA's and UFA's will have much to say about the PA making sure that the 50% the players get is more evenly distributed somehow. We have yet to see the impact of the recent contracts, but it is becoming clearer that in a couple of years there will be a larger and larger group being forced to sign for close to league minimum or not having jobs, in order for the smaller group to be paid large salaries. i don't expect that they will accept this quietly, and will push for some type of control on individual contracts as part of the CBA. This may be accomplished by limiting the actual % of the cap a contract can be signed for, or the number of contracts over a certain % each individual team may sign.

Another area I think they will push for, is that LTIR will only be considered for going over the cap, not in order to reach the cap floor, forcing teams to spend actual dollars on reaching it, unlike Ottawa and Arizona, and thus creating more actual spending on salaries for players. A team shouldn't be punished for having a player on LTIR in terms of spending, as was probably the original intention, but that should only enter into the equation if they are spending close to the maximum according to the CBA already.

 

[SML2]

I think the bigger issue lies within the NHLPA. Each player gets a vote. It doesn't matter if you're a top level player or a league minimum player. So tell me why, if I am not a top level player, am I in favor of an agreement that allows one player to make over 10 percent of the overall cap at the expense of the rest of the group? Or if I am a middle team he player who now cannot find a job because nobody has room for me on the roster, or I am forced to take less than my market value because of cap issues? The union is in a tough spot because there are far more members who are not marquis players than who are. That's where the ability to come to an agreement lies, in the number of voters, not who the voters are.

 

[Eisen]

I think the bigger issue lies within the NHLPA. Each player gets a vote. It doesn't matter if you're a top level player or a league minimum player. So tell me why, if I am not a top level player, am I in favor of an agreement that allows one player to make over 10 percent of the overall cap at the expense of the rest of the group? Or if I am a middle team he player who now cannot find a job because nobody has room for me on the roster, or I am forced to take less than my market value because of cap issues? The union is in a tough spot because there are far more members who are not marquis players than who are. That's where the ability to come to an agreement lies, in the number of voters, not who the voters are.

You could just have a majority rule.

 

[Finnish your Czech]

If the CHL labour dispute case every goes so those players are played a base salary, the cost will go up there and likely rather high.


Price goes up, people can't afford it who cares am I right ?

Maybe you make great money and good for you, but the way the NHL operates it's going to easily put tickets out of the reach.

The way it's going, it will likely come to a point where you yourself will sit there and go "****, it's too expensive to go to a game.... **** that guy from 35 years ago was right, it did get to me"

I think you're looking at this from the wrong perspective. Higher salaries don't increase ticket prices, but increasing ticket prices does raise salaries. So if the salary split were to go up, prices shouldn't change. The only thing that would change would be the feasibility of actually running the team (more likely to bankrupt, or value of the team goes down).

 

[DEANYOUNGBLOOD17]

When the top 5 players (20%) on the team make 50 million of an 82 million cap. The other 80% of the team has to share the remaining 32 million. These 80% have 80 % of the vote on the CBA for the players.

The owners should jus drop it in Fehrs lap. Tell him that we don’t care..... the cap is the cap the players get 50% of the revenue generated..... you tell us how you want us to divide it..... If 80 % of the players vote that 1 player can only get at most 10% of the cap .... so be it. That means there is more to be spread around.

That will not happen because that makes to much cents($).

 

[Butch 19]

It's incredible how some people will use an argument to bash the owners but don't see how the same argument applies to the players as well...

- 'owners are boning the players by not abiding by the contacts they've signed' - um, the players signed those contracts too. They absolutely knew that there was a possibility that they would lose money to escrow.

- 'owners are trying to milk every penny out of the players' - players do the exact same thing. Holding out because some team offers them $56 million instead of $60 million is asinine and greedy.

I do agree that there doesn't appear to be any good reason for a lockout this time around, but as another poster said - I wouldn't put it past the owners or the players to put something else on the table that becomes a deal breaker.

appropriate screen name...

 

[3074326]

It's incredible how some people will use an argument to bash the owners but don't see how the same argument applies to the players as well...

- 'owners are boning the players by not abiding by the contacts they've signed' - um, the players signed those contracts too. They absolutely knew that there was a possibility that they would lose money to escrow.

- 'owners are trying to milk every penny out of the players' - players do the exact same thing. Holding out because some team offers them $56 million instead of $60 million is asinine and greedy.

I do agree that there doesn't appear to be any good reason for a lockout this time around, but as another poster said - I wouldn't put it past the owners or the players to put something else on the table that becomes a deal breaker.

The owners are billionaires and you're saying the players are being greedy for trying to get extra money? lol.

4 million to a billionaire is chump change. 4M to most of the league is a year's salary. Saying the argument goes both ways is just not right in any sense.

 

[Oddbob]

I think there would be more rumblings if the opt out option was going to be used, so I don't think it will. However, I do strongly believe there will be another lockout, as they are one league that have proven they don't give a rip about screwing the fans with lockouts. I only wish that they lose some of the more casual fans in the process because it is ridiculous to have so many lockouts in a 20ish year period. 3 in that time is pathetic.

 

[Oddbob]

The owners are billionaires and you're saying the players are being greedy for trying to get extra money? lol.

4 million to a billionaire is chump change. 4M to most of the league is a year's salary. Saying the argument goes both ways is just not right in any sense.

Yes, but the owners take all financial responsibility of the organization, the players salary is for them alone. I am not on either side, as they are both extremely greedy, and the losers are the fans, the only reason either side gets to make money from a GAME in the first place!

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

You hate the owners then. He is the fall-guy. Not very bright to hate him for doing what the owners want IMHO. Deal with it.

It is if you have an understanding of what his job is as NHL commissioner.

He's not the fall guy, he's the architect of NHL. His job is to get all the owners on board with that vision.

Do people really think Bettman gets paid almost $10 million per year to simply do whatever the owners tell him?

And to answer the OP, yes there will very likely be another lockout. Probably not a full season, but yes a lockout.

 

[Saltcreek]

The owners are billionaires and you're saying the players are being greedy for trying to get extra money? lol.

4 million to a billionaire is chump change. 4M to most of the league is a year's salary. Saying the argument goes both ways is just not right in any sense.

The fact that some of the owners are billionaires is irrelevant given the fact that the owners and the players work within the constraints of the cap and NHL revenue. A billionaire owner does not automatically mean he should run his team at a loss or be taken advantage of in business (contract) negotiations. It definitely goes both ways.

 

[Eisen]

Yes, but the owners take all financial responsibility of the organization, the players salary is for them alone. I am not on either side, as they are both extremely greedy, and the losers are the fans, the only reason either side gets to make money from a GAME in the first place!

They have very little responsibility. They have revenue sharing and a guaranteed split of income. What they did was front some money to other owners (which in itself is absurd) and getting dividends.

 

[f1nn]

Terrible take master strikes again.

So, people who work hard and have kids who like hockey shouldn't be allowed to take their families to a game because it's likely going to cause them to worry about money later on ?

Why don't you offer up some of your money and pay for those to attend some games?

Should a family outing to go see a game really cost them 5, 600 or more ?

Hockey has already squeezed low income families out of it, now it's starting to squeeze the middle class out of it.

Soon, if it's so lucky, hockey will just be like basketball where people just go to games because it's a cool thing to do, while the fans can't get in.

Are you actually saying tickets should be kept artificially below market equilibrium? There's a limited number of seats and if someone else is willing to pay more for it than you can afford then you're out of luck and that's how it should be.

 

[AveryStar4Eva]

I don’t understand the business side of hockey all that well, but reading through this thread most of the issues seem pretty minor. If we get another lock out it’s a huge embarrassment to the league.

 

[Machinehead]

Are you arguing remiving the salary cap? Its not clear whether you are or not.

Not at all. At least not today anyway.

I'm arguing that you agree to a wage, and the players get that wage. There shouldn't be a system that allows the owners to dock pay because they're entitled to a minimum return on investment. They made the investment.

If a regular person invests money and doesn't like the return, it's tough noogies.

 

[Machinehead]

Are you actually saying tickets should be kept artificially below market equilibrium? There's a limited number of seats and if someone else is willing to pay more for it than you can afford then you're out of luck and that's how it should be.

Tickets in the German Bundesliga are kept arbitrarily below market value and the league is still raking in billions.

 

[Cor]

Early termination wouldn't take place until Sep 15th 2020, however the deadline to exercise the early termination is Sep 1st 2019 for the NHL and Sep 15th 2019 for the PA.

Personally at this point I'm guessing neither side will exercise the early termination option. Just doesn't seem to be enough noise from either side that they're considering doing so.

I think the NHL uses it.

The opt out would cause a possible lockout/strike in the 20-21 season.

Not using it, would cause a possible lockout/strike in the 21-22 season, the same year Seattle is scheduled to begin play.

The NHL will use the option for that reason, so there is resolution before Seattle enters the league. Seattle wanted to begin play in 20-21, and the NHL said no for that reason.

 

[joe dirte]

Not at all. At least not today anyway.

I'm arguing that you agree to a wage, and the players get that wage. There shouldn't be a system that allows the owners to dock pay because they're entitled to a minimum return on investment. They made the investment.

If a regular person invests money and doesn't like the return, it's tough noogies.

Most contract employees dont have guaranteed contracts though. Nearly every contract for contract employees have clauses that say the employer can terminate contract at any point, no explanation required.

I have worked for the last 10 years under contracts, and there is absolutely zero job security. You dont pull your weight, youre gone. They dont have enough work, then someone is gone. No severance pay, no nothing.

If we are going to compare these things to the situations "regular people" experience, we cant pick and choose which parts.

 

[LeHab]

Not using it, would cause a possible lockout/strike in the 21-22 season, the same year Seattle is scheduled to begin play.

The NHL will use the option for that reason, so there is resolution before Seattle enters the league. Seattle wanted to begin play in 20-21, and the NHL said no for that reason.

If no opt out, CBA will expire after 21-22 season. September 15, 2022 to be precise.