Best Hockey Analyst - Bob McKenzie

[joechip]

Let's see. I run a restaurant and in order to have "cost certainty" in my next CBA with my employees I want them to accept a salary cap. They don't like the idea so at the expiration of the current CBA I lock them out of work and pay them no salary - in hopes that they'll become fearful enough of the consequences (poverty) to accept my demands that they would normally not have accepted.

Sounds like coercion to me: intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will.

Right. You lock me out of working for YOUR restaurant. So? I them go work for some other restaurant and in doing such a good job there put real economic pressure on YOUR restaurant to either provide better service and regain market share or go out of business as my contentment and happiness at my new job spurs me to work harder. BTW, how stupid was I not to see the writing on the wall in the time leading up to the day you instituted your "Salary Cap," and not take steps to mitigate any possible effects of your decision thereof, namely by saving some extra cash or keeping an eye out for alternate sources of employment.

A much better definition is:Coercion -- the act of compelling by force of authority.

There is no authority here... just a contract of services rendered in the past for an agreed upon amount of money per unit of time. It becomes coercion when you tell me how much I am going to be paid AND you point a gun at me and make me continue to work there for that enforced wage which I find unacceptable. Working for someone is not slavery. What I just described is.

Ta,

 

[joechip]

Then we're in agreement. Nice doing business with you.

Ahhh... the rarest of commodities on the Internet.... a discussion thread that doesn't end in name calling, but a profitable exchange of ideas.

The pleasure is all mine... "Y'all come back now... ya hear?!"

Ta,

 

[habitual_hab]

A much better definition is:Coercion -- the act of compelling by force of authority.

OK, that's a definition I can accept. And I accept that the NHL is not overtly coercing the players to accept their salary cap offer.

Working for someone is not slavery.

There are those that call the system whereby someone is compelled to prostitute or rent themselves for an hourly wage or salary, wage slavery

 

[thinkwild]

the owners want to implement a set of rules that in their opinion will fix their ailing league, and if the players don't want to be part of that, they're more than free to ply their trade elsewhere in the world market.

They want to apply a set of rules that are illegal. Different businesses cant conspire to spend the same amount. The courts wouldnt allow it.

The players, if they decertify will be free to play anywhere. Including for whatever the owners want to pay them. And if Florida wants to offer $100mil for 10 years hof Crosby, they will be able to.

The way I understand it, weren't the caps in the NBA and NFL initially unilaterally instituted w/out first going through collective bargaining?

THe players unions were broken, and came back accepting the terms. The owners think they can make the hockey players cross the picket lines and accept the terms too by voting with their feet. To use Bettmans phrase, that might be a bad miscalculation.

 

[Sammy*]

They want to apply a set of rules that are illegal. Different businesses cant conspire to spend the same amount. The courts wouldnt allow it.
.

Son, you gotta figure out the difference between partners (ie NHL franchises) & independent buisnesses.
If I want to start my own league with a bunch of buddies, we can set wqhatever rules we like for that league. Nobodies forcing you or your buddies to join. Thats why they can make whatever rules they want.

 

[thinkwild]

If they are partners why arent they sharing their money?

YOu can start a league and set whatever rules you like. If you want to make big money off it and have the bet players in the world, you are going to have to learn to exist in a reality where you cant impose you will on everyone, kiddo.

 

[me2]

Right. You lock me out of working for YOUR restaurant. So? I them go work for some other restaurant and in doing such a good job there put real economic pressure on YOUR restaurant to either provide better service and regain market share or go out of business as my contentment and happiness at my new job spurs me to work harder. BTW, how stupid was I not to see the writing on the wall in the time leading up to the day you instituted your "Salary Cap," and not take steps to mitigate any possible effects of your decision thereof, namely by saving some extra cash or keeping an eye out for alternate sources of employment.

A much better definition is:Coercion -- the act of compelling by force of authority.

There is no authority here... just a contract of services rendered in the past for an agreed upon amount of money per unit of time. It becomes coercion when you tell me how much I am going to be paid AND you point a gun at me and make me continue to work there for that enforced wage which I find unacceptable. Working for someone is not slavery. What I just described is.

Ta,

Not only that but while you are working at the restaurant next door he can't hire any new staff for a year. I still you were a little greedy to knock back the $1.3m/y he was offering

 

[me2]

If they are partners why arent they sharing their money?

YOu can start a league and set whatever rules you like. If you want to make big money off it and have the bet players in the world, you are going to have to learn to exist in a reality where you cant impose you will on everyone, kiddo.

Quite a good idea, 50-50 split of total raw gate would work for me. The NHL should then rule that teams must stay in the black or be fined. Fining teams a lot of money might get around a salary cap in the CBA.

 

[habitual_hab]

greedy to knock back the $1.3m/y he was offering.

Greedy to reject a 30% rollback in wages based on a fictional 75% player cost ratio? I think not.

 

[me2]

The players, if they decertify will be free to play anywhere. Including for whatever the owners want to pay them. And if Florida wants to offer $100mil for 10 years hof Crosby, they will be able to.

The players might want to think twice about the consequences of that act. Without a draft things won't look so rosy for them after 2 or 3 years.

 

[me2]

Greedy to reject a 30% rollback in wages based on a fictional 75% player cost ratio? I think not.

He's going to work elsewhere while you watch you restaurant go no where because you locked him out for a year. Your choice. If he can get a better deal elsewhere he won't bother coming back. If he can't get a better deal else where then you 30% wages drop is still paying more than anyone else.

 

[joechip]

There are those that call the system whereby someone is compelled to prostitute or rent themselves for an hourly wage or salary, wage slavery

H_H, that is certainly so... I know that I've used the phrase on more than one occasion, but imaginative and colorful use of metaphor does not become truth through repeated use, it's still just a colorful metaphor.

The truth is that there is a huge difference between wage earning and slavery, and the path to freeing oneself from the former is prudent management of what little capital one has (that includes rational analysis of local/federal poltical/economic trends) for that future time when one can strike out in a different direction.

While emotions are certainly a part of the economic choices we all make, our analysis of said choices and their conditions should be devoid of them and let logic rule the day. The term 'wage slavery' is an emotional one, not a logical one, because in actual fact it is an oxymoron.

Ta,

 

[habitual_hab]

He's going to work elsewhere while you watch you restaurant go no where because you locked him out for a year. Your choice. If he can get a better deal elsewhere he won't bother coming back. If he can't get a better deal else where then you 30% wages drop is still paying more than anyone else.

So I understand it that you take the NHL's 75% player cost ratio to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But I digress.

 

[Sammy*]

If they are partners why arent they sharing their money?

YOu can start a league and set whatever rules you like. If you want to make big money off it and have the bet players in the world, you are going to have to learn to exist in a reality where you cant impose you will on everyone, kiddo.

Sonny,
I am in a partnership & let me tell you, we dont share our money .
Many dont.

 

[braincramp]

The players want to make money while doing something they like. (playing)
The owners want to make money while doing something they like. (owning)
The fans want to spend little money while doing something they like. (watching)

They are all free persons who can make choices. They can take any job they like, own/manage any business they like, follow any sport/team they like. They are not being coerced. They can withhold their participation if conditions and cost/compensation are not to their satisfaction.

In our system, they must reach a negotiated settlement or there will be no hockey. They haven't. There isn't. Maybe they will, or maybe they won't. They must recognize that to satisfy their wants, they must resolve their conflicts. It isn't anyone's fault, it just is.

Maybe some time off is necessary for all this to be appreciated.

I can live with ten less teams, 300 fewer players, and a lot fewer fans. And so can you.

 

[me2]

So I understand it that you take the NHL's 75% player cost ratio to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

"the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. " No. Do you? Though it does seem a whole lot closer to reality the "everything is fine as it is" position Goodenow is taking.

But I digress.

Indeed. Lets face it, if you offer someone a 30% paycut and its still 4 times what he can make at any other restuarant in town, then it is a reasonable offer and he'll have to suck it up or work somewhere else for a 1/4 of what you offered. If you are ripping him off but paying him 30% less than everyone else he won't.

Which category do the players fit into?

 

[habitual_hab]

"the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. " No. Do you? Though it does seem a whole lot closer to reality the "everything is fine as it is" position Goodenow is taking.

The NHL's case of crippling poverty is based on fictional numbers. The NHLPA has provided a starting point for negotiations...

Indeed. Lets face it, if you offer someone a 30% paycut and its still 4 times what he can make at any other restuarant in town, then it is a reasonable offer and he'll have to suck it up or work somewhere else for a 1/4 of what you offered. If you are ripping him off but paying him 30% less than everyone else he won't.

Which category do the players fit into?

What industry are NHL players involved in? Yes, that's right - the sports-entertainment industry. So, you're telling me that by accepting a 30% paycut, NHL players will still receive 4 times what their brethren in the NBA, NFL, MBA make?

 

[djhn579]

What industry are NHL players involved in? Yes, that's right - the sports-entertainment industry. So, you're telling me that by accepting a 30% paycut, NHL players will still receive 4 times what their brethren in the NBA, NFL, MBA make?

Actually, they are in the hockey business. A hockey player, in general, would not have the necessary skills to play in the NFL, NBA, or MBA. So you need to look at what the NHL player is qualified to do. What hockey leagues pay more than the NHL?

 

[habitual_hab]

Actually, they are in the hockey business. A hockey player, in general, would not have the necessary skills to play in the NFL, NBA, or MBA. So you need to look at what the NHL player is qualified to do. What hockey leagues pay more than the NHL?

No, they're in the sports-entertainment industry.

Part of Mr. Levitt's assignment included looking at the NBA and NFL to see how they handle related party revenue allocations. Why would the NHL commission to do comparisons of non-related industries? Because they are not non-related - they all in the sports-entertainment industry.

(And a sushi chef and a short-order cook might have different skill sets but they're still in the same industry.)

 

[djhn579]

No, they're in the sports-entertainment industry.

Part of Mr. Levitt's assignment included looking at the NBA and NFL to see how they handle related party revenue allocations. Why would the NHL commission to do comparisons of non-related industries? Because they are not non-related - they all in the sports-entertainment industry.

(And a sushi chef and a short-order cook might have different skill sets but they're still in the same industry.)

So what hockey players are getting contract offers from other sports? The different sports leagues you are talking about bring in considerably different amounts of revenue than the NHL. It is pretty rediculous to say that NHL players should be paid the same as NFL players unless both those leagues had the same amounts of revenue.

And a short order cook will never get a job as a sushi chef unless he has the necessary skills and training to be a sushi chef. Maybe you are right about them both being in the same industry (food service), but that does not mean everyone in that industry gets paid the same.

 

[Carl Spackler]

It is spelled ridiculous. R-I-D-I-C-U-L-O-U-S. I have never seen a word misspelled as often as that word is on these boards. Not all English words are spelled phonetically. Or should I say foneticully?

 

[djhn579]

It is spelled ridiculous. R-I-D-I-C-U-L-O-U-S. I have never seen a word misspelled as often as that word is on these boards. Not all English words are spelled phonetically. Or should I say foneticully?

Thanks for the correction!

 

[habitual_hab]

So what hockey players are getting contract offers from other sports? The different sports leagues you are talking about bring in considerably different amounts of revenue than the NHL. It is pretty rediculous to say that NHL players should be paid the same as NFL players unless both those leagues had the same amounts of revenue.

And a short order cook will never get a job as a sushi chef unless he has the necessary skills and training to be a sushi chef. Maybe you are right about them both being in the same industry (food service), but that does not mean everyone in that industry gets paid the same.

Nobody is saying that hockey players are getting contract offers from other sports. And nobody is saying that NHL players should be paid the same as NFL players.

Hockey players and football players have a different skill set but their still part of the same sports-entertainment industry.

Bettman states that NHL player costs are 75% of revenues. A more realistic number is probably closer to 65%. By comparison, the NFL spent 64 percent of its total revenues on player costs. Major League Baseball sits at 63 percent, while 58 percent of the NBA's revenues went to player salaries. Yet, you want NHL players to take a 30% cut in pay.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Nobody is saying that hockey players are getting contract offers from other sports. And nobody is saying that NHL players should be paid the same as NFL players.

Hockey players and football players have a different skill set but their still part of the same sports-entertainment industry.

Bettman states that NHL player costs are 75% of revenues. A more realistic number is probably closer to 65%. By comparison, the NFL spent 64 percent of its total revenues on player costs. Major League Baseball sits at 63 percent, while 58 percent of the NBA's revenues went to player salaries. Yet, you want NHL players to take a 30% cut in pay.

The NBA's luxury tax doesn't even kick in unless player salaries for the entire league hit 61% of revenue.

 

[Seachd]

Bettman states that NHL player costs are 75% of revenues. A more realistic number is probably closer to 65%.

More realistic based on what?