Does This Shed Any Light on the NHL's Revenue Sharing Plans?

[Tom_Benjamin]

Here's hoping the players do decertify and get the rude awakening they have in store.

In your dreams. Player salaries will very probably rise.

Are we sure that existing contracts would be valid if the PA decertifies?

A player who is unhappy with his contract may be able to sue and get it invalidated. The owner can't use anti-trust laws to accomplish the same thing. Damn those one sided anti-trust laws, eh?

Tom

 

[SENSible1*]

In your dreams. Player salaries will very probably rise.



A player who is unhappy with his contract may be able to sue and get it invalidated. The owner can't use anti-trust laws to accomplish the same thing. Damn those one sided anti-trust laws, eh?

Tom

Players slaries rise?

HMMM...Can anyone remind me what happens when a market gets flooded?

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Players slaries rise?

HMMM...Can anyone remind me what happens when a market gets flooded?

Flooded with what? There are more than 500 existing contracts and they don't all expire at once. Even if all existing contracts were thrown out, the "flood" would be very temporary, because the length of contract will directly reflect the player quality. The best players will get long contracts. After an initial rush, the flood will go back to being a trickle or perhaps a steady stream.

Even if they do not rise, even if they go down, the players will know they are getting a fair deal. English football players don't seem to be doing badly. In the 1999-2000 season the English Football league generated about 1 billion pounds and player salaries totalled 747 million pounds. Sounds pretty much like today's NHL to me. It doesn't leave the players with 54% of the revenue - it gave them 74.7% of the revenue.

Tom

 

[SENSible1*]

If the players could increase their share from 54 to 74 % they would have already de-certified.

Even IF present contracts are upheld (uncertain), the NHL can simply wait until next year when most teams will only have a handful of contracts.

The players would make a fraction of their current levels and would do so without garaunteed contracts and all the other perks contained in the CBA.

Keep dreaming that de-certification will be anything but a disaster for the vast majority of players in the NHL, who's value would be determined by what their services could get on the world wide market. Many of them have first hand experience in finding out what they can get on that market right now and I'm not sure they are thrilled with the results.

Of course this ignores the fact that the NHL simply has to find another group of players willing to form another Players Association and they can negotiate the terms of a capped CBA with them instead. If the current members of the NHLPA want to play in the NHL they would then have to become members of the new association and accept the new capped CBA or ply their wares somewhere else in the world. In fact, the NHL could simply refuse to re-start the league until a new CBA has been negotiated with a new PA.

Decertification, as an exit strategy, is a joke.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

If the players could increase their share from 54 to 74 % they would have already de-certified.

According to the NHL - it's bogus I know - they are already getting 75%. Why would the decertify when they know it will cost jobs?

The NHL won't simply be able to wait. If the owners choose not to play, the players sue and win their salaries for sitting out.

The players would make a fraction of their current levels and would do so without garaunteed contracts and all the other perks contained in the CBA.

In another life, like I said. The same guys who have been unable to show any discipline whatsoever are suddenly going to change? Explain why English football players are so well paid.

Guaranteed contracts? Ha-ha. What will disappear is the right to buy out the contract at 2/3 of the money. Think English football players don't have guaranted contracts?

[quiote]Of course this ignores the fact that the NHL simply has to find another group of players willing to form another Players Association and they can negotiate the terms of a capped CBA with them instead. [/quote]

Sorry. There isn't a jurisdiction in the world that would make the players form a union to benefit the employer. If they don't want a union, they don't have to have one.

Tom

 

[SENSible1*]

According to the NHL - it's bogus I know - they are already getting 75%. Why would the decertify when they know it will cost jobs?

The NHL won't simply be able to wait. If the owners choose not to play, the players sue and win their salaries for sitting out.

You have yet to provide any proof that the contracts are valid if the PA de-ceritfies.

In another life, like I said. The same guys who have been unable to show any discipline whatsoever are suddenly going to change? Explain why English football players are so well paid.

Guaranteed contracts? Ha-ha. What will disappear is the right to buy out the contract at 2/3 of the money. Think English football players don't have guaranted contracts?

Sure thing. The owners, who have admitted that their foolish spending has caused the problem, are going to go on a spending spree when they have the players right where they want them.

Sorry. There isn't a jurisdiction in the world that would make the players form a union to benefit the employer. If they don't want a union, they don't have to have one.

Tom

No jurisdiction would have to force ANOTHER group on hockey players to form a Players Association. They would do it on their own. Any current NHLPA member would then have to join the new PA to play in the league.

What is to stop a group of enterprising replacement players and would-be agents from forming a new PA?

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

You have yet to provide any proof that the contracts are valid if the PA de-ceritfies.

You have this backwards. The owner will have to show why a perfectly valid contract does not have to be honoured. I can imagine a way a player can get it invalidated but I can't think of a reason an employer could.

Sure thing. The owners, who have admitted that their foolish spending has caused the problem, are going to go on a spending spree when they have the players right where they want them.

So why don't they just stop all this foolishness? If they have learned a lesson they don't need to be protected from themselves, do they?

No jurisdiction would have to force ANOTHER group on hockey players to form a Players Association. They would do it on their own. Any current NHLPA member would then have to join the new PA to play in the league.

Why?

What is to stop a group of enterprising replacement players and would-be agents from forming a new PA?

What replacement players are you talking about? There is no CBA, no lockout, no strike, no replacement players. Replace who? If some teams want to hire Lonnie Bohonos and Corey Hirsch and have them try to organize the players, they can feel free. I think the Rangers and Leafs will be busy bidding on Jarome Iginla, Markus Naslund and Sidney Crosby. (Ask the GM of your team to hire Lonnie et al and get organizing. Maybe they will go 0-82.)

Oh, and you forgot to explain why English soccer players get paid so much.

Tom

 

[Sp5618]

What's to Entice the Euros?

We can argue all we want about what the owners of current NHL teams may be willing to pay, but ultimately they are not in a vacuum. For example, Russian and Swedish players do have other options. If Ovechkin gets $2-3 million to stay in Russia, what could be his motive for going to the NHL....where the NHL just busted up the union, drove wages down, which in a trickle-down effect means the younger guys get shorted first?

The American and Canadian players may accept these conditions to stay home, but we can expect to see some exodus of talent. Even if it is only 20% of European players, this will significantly dilute the talent levels- levels many of us already lament on at least a weekly basis. We also may see some of them come over simply to earn their stripes, then realize that they can get 'reasonable' salaries at home. Its even worse in a league where replacement players are used. The draw to play in the worlds' best league simply would not be there anymore, would it?

I guess I am not optimistic that I will like the NHL that results from this mess.

 

[SENSible1*]

You have this backwards. The owner will have to show why a perfectly valid contract does not have to be honoured. I can imagine a way a player can get it invalidated but I can't think of a reason an employer could.

Actually you have it backwards. You are making the claim that the contracts would still be valid without offering any proof.

So why don't they just stop all this foolishness? If they have learned a lesson they don't need to be protected from themselves, do they?

What foolishness? They either get this group of players back on their terms or begin life with a new group of players.

What replacement players are you talking about? There is no CBA, no lockout, no strike, no replacement players. Replace who? If some teams want to hire Lonnie Bohonos and Corey Hirsch and have them try to organize the players, they can feel free. I think the Rangers and Leafs will be busy bidding on Jarome Iginla, Markus Naslund and Sidney Crosby. (Ask the GM of your team to hire Lonnie et al and get organizing. Maybe they will go 0-82.)

The teams could simply agree not to sign any players until they had a new CBA in place.

Even given your scenario, the signings by the Leafs and Rangers would be subject to the cap negotiated with Hirsh and Bohonos, so how much will they be able to spend on Iginla, Naslund and Crosby?

Oh, and you forgot to explain why English soccer players get paid so much.

That's because I have no interest or knowledge of English soccer, the labour situation or their pay scale.

 

[SENSible1*]

We can argue all we want about what the owners of current NHL teams may be willing to pay, but ultimately they are not in a vacuum. For example, Russian and Swedish players do have other options. If Ovechkin gets $2-3 million to stay in Russia, what could be his motive for going to the NHL....where the NHL just busted up the union, drove wages down, which in a trickle-down effect means the younger guys get shorted first?

The American and Canadian players may accept these conditions to stay home, but we can expect to see some exodus of talent. Even if it is only 20% of European players, this will significantly dilute the talent levels- levels many of us already lament on at least a weekly basis. We also may see some of them come over simply to earn their stripes, then realize that they can get 'reasonable' salaries at home. Its even worse in a league where replacement players are used. The draw to play in the worlds' best league simply would not be there anymore, would it?

I guess I am not optimistic that I will like the NHL that results from this mess.

I've already clearly stated that the market for decertified NHLPA members would be set by what they could earn in Europe.

How happy are they with their real value they are earning right now in Europe?

Care to explain how this puts them in a better postition than simply agreeing to the NHL's proposal?

 

[Sp5618]

I've already clearly stated that the market for decertified NHLPA members would be set by what they could earn in Europe.

How happy are they with their real value they are earning right now in Europe?

Care to explain how this puts them in a better postition than simply agreeing to the NHL's proposal?

If you can make the same (or more in Europe), what could possibly be the draw to come HERE if you are a Euro?

Also, for a star player, like a Kovalchuk, he may do much better in Russia than in a capped NHL. Especially if some of the older stars suck up the little bit of NHL money left. Throw together some numbers....assume a $40 million cap and 22 players. How many can you afford at $3-5 million and still pull together a star-studded team.

Furthermore it may not be solely about money. Some of these guys may be willing to earn a little less....they'd still be millionaires...because they feel an incredible amount of anger and disgust towards a league that has smeared them in the manner Bettman's PR campaign has.

 

[SENSible1*]

If you can make the same (or more in Europe), what could possibly be the draw to come HERE if you are a Euro?

Also, for a star player, like a Kovalchuk, he may do much better in Russia than in a capped NHL. Especially if some of the older stars suck up the little bit of NHL money left. Throw together some numbers....assume a $40 million cap and 22 players. How many can you afford at $3-5 million and still pull together a star-studded team.

Furthermore it may not be solely about money. Some of these guys may be willing to earn a little less....they'd still be millionaires...because they feel an incredible amount of anger and disgust towards a league that has smeared them in the manner Bettman's PR campaign has.

The players, as a group, would be far better off accepting the league's proposal. Of course, we all know that the offer would improve if the PA would simply agree to a linkage.

Some individuals would be better off in Europe, especially the young stars, but the same reality would be true under the PA's offer.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

The teams could simply agree not to sign any players until they had a new CBA in place.

No they couldn't. Not unless they want to get whacked by a collusion lawsuit in the hundreds of millions. The players have chosen not to have a union or a CBA. Nobody signs Martin Brodeur to play in the NHL and somebody does sign Corey Hirsch. Nobody signs Iginla and somebody signs Bohonos? So they can organize a union? How much does the NHL want to pay the players in damages? For baseball it was $280 million 20 years ago.

That's because I have no interest or knowledge of English soccer, the labour situation or their pay scale.

The NHL players would be in pretty much the same boat as English soccer players if they decertify. English soccer players are very rich. There is no union. No CBA. There are tons and tons of soccer players available. That's all you have to know to see the comparison. Why would hockey players suddenly become cheap if they decertify? If a flood of soccer players doesn't make elite soccer players cheap, why wouldn't the best 750 hockey players be expensive?

Tom

 

[SENSible1*]

No they couldn't. Not unless they want to get whacked by a collusion lawsuit in the hundreds of millions. The players have chosen not to have a union or a CBA. Nobody signs Martin Brodeur to play in the NHL and somebody does sign Corey Hirsch. Nobody signs Iginla and somebody signs Bohonos? So they can organize a union? How much does the NHL want to pay the players in damages? For baseball it was $280 million 20 years ago.

NHL teams would make OFFERS to players inside and outside of the current NHLPA. If NHLPA members refuse those offers, they would have no case for collusion when the players that do accept contracts form a PA and ratify a CBA.

Simply because those offers would represent the real international value of the players services and not the highly inflated offers under the artificial market of the old CBA would be no case for collusion.

The NHL players would be in pretty much the same boat as English soccer players if they decertify. English soccer players are very rich. There is no union. No CBA. There are tons and tons of soccer players available. That's all you have to know to see the comparison. Why would hockey players suddenly become cheap if they decertify? If a flood of soccer players doesn't make elite soccer players cheap, why wouldn't the best 750 hockey players be expensive?

Tom

I'll be sure to give your unbiased evaluation of the workings of British soccer all the consideration it deserves. Do you think that INERNATIONAL competition for soccer players from NUMEROUS leagues paying elite money might have a little to do with the salaries they get in the British league?

The NHLPA can surely get the NHL to match or better the market the rest of the hockey leagues in the world have established. Hope they enjoy making a third of what they do under the league proposal.

If you seriously believe the NHLPA salaries would increase by decertifying, give them a call and let them know how crazy they are to offer a 24% bribe to maintain the inflationary system under an unecessary CBA. I'm sure they'll be thrilled to hear your highly useful solution to their present quandry.

If the PA decertifies, they will get exactly what they deserve.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

One of the reasons I've been attracted to this thread is that there has been some seriously creative thinking/discussion going on. However, it's been my experience that creativity seldom finds a home in the real world. The union won't decertify. The league won't go to a tiered system. On and on.

How to keep low-revenue franchises competitive without punishing high-revenue teams? How to decide which kind of revenue stream sets the bar for player salaries? Personally, as someone who grew up in Pittsburgh and lives in Columbus, a flexible cap that helps my teams be competitive coupled with a revenue sharing system that "secretly" rewards the large markets, especially if that's what it takes to get a US TV deal that would grow revenue for all teams, is OK by me. Especially if it gets the league back on the ice this season.

 

[mudcrutch79]

NHL teams would make OFFERS to players inside and outside of the current NHLPA. If NHLPA members refuse those offers, they would have no case for collusion when the players that do accept contracts form a PA and ratify a CBA.

Simply because those offers would represent the real international value of the players services and not the highly inflated offers under the artificial market of the old CBA would be no case for collusion.

If the owners were agreeing not to make offers above point X, that's collusion. It's not the making of the offer that matters, it's the making of the offer without having an agreement in place with your competititors not to go above point X. If guys like Iginla were getting the same offers as guys like Bohonos, Iggy would have a slam dunk collusion case I believe.

I'll be sure to give your unbiased evaluation of the workings of British soccer all the consideration it deserves. Do you think that INERNATIONAL competition for soccer players from NUMEROUS leagues paying elite money might have a little to do with the salaries they get in the British league?

The NHLPA can surely get the NHL to match or better the market the rest of the hockey leagues in the world have established. Hope they enjoy making a third of what they do under the league proposal.

For some guys...maybe. If you think that Iginla would be making a third of what he makes in Calgary, when all of the sudden he's a 26 year old UFA, you're wrong. If you think that the Sidney Crosby's will be making pocket change, you're wrong. It might hurt the bottom end, but the guys at the top would make crazy money, at least initially.

If you seriously believe the NHLPA salaries would increase by decertifying, give them a call and let them know how crazy they are to offer a 24% bribe to maintain the inflationary system under an unecessary CBA. I'm sure they'll be thrilled to hear your highly useful solution to their present quandry.

I think that each side has an interest in certainty, and they won't want to risk losing it. There's a comfort associated with knowing to a certain degree how the system you're in will operate. In my mind, that's why the NHL won't want to push the union to the point that they decide to decertify, and the guys in the union would be hesitant to do so.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

For some guys...maybe. If you think that Iginla would be making a third of what he makes in Calgary, when all of the sudden he's a 26 year old UFA, you're wrong. If you think that the Sidney Crosby's will be making pocket change, you're wrong. It might hurt the bottom end, but the guys at the top would make crazy money, at least initially.

I think this is exactly right. I think it would hurt the bottom end significantly, particularly since players would have to manage their own insurance, pension and marketing issues. The NHLPA might become a true association - voluntary membership, not a bargaining agent - to manage some of these issues. That's what the NFLPA did in 1989 and the courts accepted that it marked the end of a collective bargaining relationship.

One thing that makes decertification more attractive to the bottom end players is that the European salary structure would act as a floor for the bottom end players.

I think that each side has an interest in certainty, and they won't want to risk losing it. There's a comfort associated with knowing to a certain degree how the system you're in will operate. In my mind, that's why the NHL won't want to push the union to the point that they decide to decertify, and the guys in the union would be hesitant to do so.

I agree with this too. It would change the landscape of the NHL. A number of teams would probably fold. The league would probably be forced into a tiering slash relegation system. Fewer players would have the opportunity to play in the best league (the top tier) or for the Stanley Cup.

Brian Burke claims that the impasse route and replacement players is not going to happen and I agree with him, although probably for different reasons. Only one of two possible things could happen. One, players refuse to cross and the effort collapses. This isn't the NFL where the league could survive and thrive with replacement players. This option only works for the owners if significant numbers of players cross. Two, players do begin to cross the line. If that is the case, the players decertify.

Either situation is a mess. I don't think the owners go for it. I think we can see the owner strategy. Do nothing until the players agree to accept linkage. If the players don't move either we will be in exactly the same spot a year from now, wondering whether a second season will be cancelled, or the players decertify.

I'd rather see the issue forced right now. I agree the owners don't want decertification. They want the players to take a deal that, if it was any worse, they decertify. I wish Trevor Linden would say, "Never mind any negotiations. Give us your very best offer under this crazy system of yours. We're having a vote on January 20th. We'll ask the players to choose between whatever you put forward and decertifying the NHLPA as our bargaining agent. If you don't want to sweeten the offer made on December 9th, that's what will be on the ballot."

People who think decertification is not a possibility aren't clear on the concept. The NFLPA did it in 1989, and, as a result won an anti-trust case. Jordan and Ewing were pushing the NBA towards decertification in 1995 and Fehr threatened it in the baseball dispute in the same year.

Tom

 

[SENSible1*]

If the owners were agreeing not to make offers above point X, that's collusion. It's not the making of the offer that matters, it's the making of the offer without having an agreement in place with your competititors not to go above point X. If guys like Iginla were getting the same offers as guys like Bohonos, Iggy would have a slam dunk collusion case I believe.

Who's saying Iginla would recieve the same offer as Bohonos?
Teams would offer him whatever they thought they could afford UNDER A LOW CAP.

For some guys...maybe. If you think that Iginla would be making a third of what he makes in Calgary, when all of the sudden he's a 26 year old UFA, you're wrong. If you think that the Sidney Crosby's will be making pocket change, you're wrong. It might hurt the bottom end, but the guys at the top would make crazy money, at least initially.

The guys at the top will make a dispropotionate share, but how much can a hockey team afford to pay one player of 20+ when the cap is set at $30? Iginla would be lucky to get $5 M. Crosby might get the same. Personally I have no problem with talent being rewarded over plugs who have "put in their time".

I think that each side has an interest in certainty, and they won't want to risk losing it. There's a comfort associated with knowing to a certain degree how the system you're in will operate. In my mind, that's why the NHL won't want to push the union to the point that they decide to decertify, and the guys in the union would be hesitant to do so.

I'm sure certainty plays a big role for the PA, especially the certainty that the players salaries would drop drastically.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Who's saying Iginla would recieve the same offer as Bohonos?
Teams would offer him whatever they thought they could afford UNDER A LOW CAP.

If the players decertify, a cap is collusion. Two or more employers cannot stick their heads together and set salary limits. You are suggesting that the teams hire Bohonos and Hirsch, then have them create an NHLOwnersPA and agree to a cap. As soon as they hire Bohonos over Iginla they get whacked with a lawsuit they are absolutely sure to lose.

Tom

 

[SENSible1*]

If the players decertify, a cap is collusion. Two or more employers cannot stick their heads together and set salary limits. You are suggesting that the teams hire Bohonos and Hirsch, then have them create an NHLOwnersPA and agree to a cap. As soon as they hire Bohonos over Iginla they get whacked with a lawsuit they are absolutely sure to lose.

Tom

As long as teams compete for Iginla's services and make him offers, then they will win the lawsuit. Hiring Bohonos over Iginla does nothing for a collusion case if they offer Bohonos $500,000 and Iginla $5 M.

The WHA had a 15M dollar cap in its league by-laws. Was that collusion?

 

[hockeytown9321]

This isn't the NFL where the league could survive and thrive with replacement players.

I don't think the NFL thrived with the replacements. Somewhere on this board a few months ago, I posted each teams 1987 attendance along with 1986 for a comparsion. It wasn't good.

 

[mudcrutch79]

The WHA had a 15M dollar cap in its league by-laws. Was that collusion?

Yes. If the league was anything more than smoke and mirrors to begin with, someone might have cared about that too.

 

[mudcrutch79]

I think we can see the owner strategy. Do nothing until the players agree to accept linkage. If the players don't move either we will be in exactly the same spot a year from now, wondering whether a second season will be cancelled, or the players decertify.

I just don't think that the owners are willing to blow a whole season, because I think in doing so, they're making it less likely that they're going to get what they want in the end. If I'm a player who's pissed away a season of my career, I have a hard time swallowing the exact same offer a year later. To put it another way, my threshold, below which I vote to decertify, is probably higher now. It's a big gun that the players have to end the lockout immediately.

I can't help but think that the logical end game for the owners here is to, within the next couple days, come forward with an offer that removes the cap, but does a lot of other things to restrain salaries from escalating until a guy hits free agency. It's the logical move to make, in that it allows the players to escape with a moral victory, as they can say that they blocked the cap, but it gives a team the tools to more readily make money. The cap is a means to an end, and if the players are now perceiveing it as an end unto itself, it seems to be advantage owners to me. If the owners were to make an offer like that, I'm sure the players would look long and hard at it before rejecting it.

The owners are a cutthroat group as well-I'm sure that a lot of them are thinking what John McMullen said back in '94, but this time in reference to the sourthern US markets. It just makes too much sense not to settle this.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

I can't help but think that the logical end game for the owners here is to, within the next couple days, come forward with an offer that removes the cap, but does a lot of other things to restrain salaries from escalating until a guy hits free agency.

I hope you are right, but I've said all the way along that whichever side gives up on the key issue can write the rest of the CBA. If the players said "Okay. We buy linkage. Set up an escrow system. The entire CBA stays the same except player costs are limited to 60% of revenues. Everybody holds back salary until the end. After audits, the escrow is either returned to the players or divided equally among the owners." The NHL would probably buy it. If teams overspend, they pay. It would be a cap on global salaries that worked like a hidden luxury tax to share revenues.

I think salaries are restrained by the fact a player can only negotiate with one team before free agency. It isn't like we can expect a system that sticks player salaries at an entry level and then never rise. You can eliminate arbitration but all that will do is lead to several high profile holdouts each year. That is the only thing arbitration was designed to avoid. It is free agency that causes the real problems.

My only hope - unless the players do kickstart something with a decertification threat - is that the owners on December 9th really went "Wow! We won!" and Bill Wirtz said "Hold on there. We've got another month. Now that we've got an offer we can accept lock stock and barrel we can really play hardball. We can wait until the very last second before we can still get a season in. If the players cave on linkage we do better forever. If they don't we do a lot better in the next five years and we can do it again then if we have to. Go back and give them a good slap Gary."

On the other hand, there is the possibility that the owners never intended or expected to have a season. Boston has 11 players under contract. Edmonton moved their AHL franchise to Edmonton. It doesn't make sense to lose a season but it doesn't make sense to have 11 players under contract when a settlement would produce a two week training camp and a truncated season either.

Tom

 

[CarlRacki]

I don't think the NFL thrived with the replacements. Somewhere on this board a few months ago, I posted each teams 1987 attendance along with 1986 for a comparsion. It wasn't good.

It was good enough that the union collapsed within a few weeks.
Much like the NFL in 1987, the NHL would be happy to put on scab hockey to half filled arenas if it attains the ultimate goal: breaking the union.