Fairness for the NHLPA

[Lanny MacDonald*]

That said if the players would stick together while forming a competitive league and if the owners try replacements who would you put your money on? The players are the ones with the talent.

10 teams may be possible next year but it may be too ambitious. The main thrust of this should be to increase the bargaining power of the NHLPA. After all this is a very serious game of high stakes poker (or "chicken").

This should be started the minute the NHL cancels the season. Possibly 4 teams rather than 2 could be formed to challenge for the Stanley Cup this spring (may I suggest Quebec and Winnepeg added to my original two?) They don't need to worry (for now) about the legal details (Lord Stanleys intentions, the fact that the NHL has no players, never mind that they no longer are the elite of North American Hockey as required by the post 1940's trustee guidelines etc etc). All they need to do is start a 4 team challenge series stating that the top 2 will offer a challenge for the Cup. Don't tell me you wouldn't watch.

Yes, this will leave a lot of unemployed NHLPA players but if the season is cancelled that would be 4 more teams playing than not. The schedule would have to be minimal for this year to allow things to be run professionally but if it was the top players available playing on the 4 teams the hockey would be incredible.

If there was still no deal starting October '05 they could run a 6-8 team league. More teams would be problematic and the smaller group would build a following more quickly with fans. Something like a 40 game schedule for each team would be feasible.

Each NHLPA player would receive one "share" in the new league (with the provision that the league would collapse if a new CBA could be reached at the NHLPA discretion). Players could buy additional shares, up to 1 per year of NHLPA membership (money would be refunded when available if the league was collapsed by the NHLPA).

The teams would play with a salary cap in the range of one third offered by the present league, say 12 million. (this is not being hypocritical as they have potential to gain in other ways: sale of franchises if the league suceeds, temporary employment as the strike continues, and above all improved bargaining power in negotiations with the NHL owners that are hell bent on breaking their Union)

The remaining players could do what they would be doing otherwise, playing in Europe or the AHL etc but would be discouraged from becoming replacements for the NHL as they would lose any shares in the new league.

The main thing is opening up a second front. More bargaining power, more options, more hope. What other choices do they have. IF the new league succeeded they could write their own CBA and if they want to subsidize weak markets/teams they can do it on their own terms.

You NHLPA guys crack me up. Listen to yourselves for five minutes. You throw together a lot of stuff, all of it which conflicts with the base premise of the NHLPA's argument. They refuse to play under a salary cap! Yet what's the first thing you rocket scientists throw together as alternatives? Playing in the WHA, under a salary cap, or starting their own league, and playing under a salary cap. You don't see the irony in the whole thing?

Let me ask you a few things.

1) Where are these teams going to play? Would cities that have hopes of one day seeing a NHL team through movement or expansion want to make a mistake like wronging the league and allowing a product like this to go on?

2) Who is going to front the capital? These things cost money to run. Where does it come from?

3) How are the players going to be paid? They aren't going to work for free and will want guaranteed contracts.

4) Wh is going to insure this league? Nothing happens without insurance.

5) How are they going to challenge for the Stanley Cup when the trophy is entrusted to the NHL, until its disolution, by the Hockey Hall of Fame?

You're delusional if you think the NHLPA can over come the basic challenges of starting up a league. Its not as easy as finding some guys who want to play, renting some ice and throwing the sticks in the middle. You have no clue how complex this is. I have a feeling the NHLPA is in a similar position.

 

[Crosbyfan]

You NHLPA guys crack me up. Listen to yourselves for five minutes. You throw together a lot of stuff, all of it which conflicts with the base premise of the NHLPA's argument. They refuse to play under a salary cap! Yet what's the first thing you rocket scientists throw together as alternatives? Playing in the WHA, under a salary cap, or starting their own league, and playing under a salary cap. You don't see the irony in the whole thing?

Let me ask you a few things.

1) Where are these teams going to play? Would cities that have hopes of one day seeing a NHL team through movement or expansion want to make a mistake like wronging the league and allowing a product like this to go on?

2) Who is going to front the capital? These things cost money to run. Where does it come from?

3) How are the players going to be paid? They aren't going to work for free and will want guaranteed contracts.

4) Wh is going to insure this league? Nothing happens without insurance.

5) How are they going to challenge for the Stanley Cup when the trophy is entrusted to the NHL, until its disolution, by the Hockey Hall of Fame?

You're delusional if you think the NHLPA can over come the basic challenges of starting up a league. Its not as easy as finding some guys who want to play, renting some ice and throwing the sticks in the middle. You have no clue how complex this is. I have a feeling the NHLPA is in a similar position.

Did you read my post?

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Did you read my post?

Read it. Answer the questions.

 

[Crosbyfan]

You NHLPA guys crack me up. Listen to yourselves for five minutes. You throw together a lot of stuff, all of it which conflicts with the base premise of the NHLPA's argument. They refuse to play under a salary cap! Yet what's the first thing you rocket scientists throw together as alternatives? Playing in the WHA, under a salary cap, or starting their own league, and playing under a salary cap. You don't see the irony in the whole thing?

Let me ask you a few things.

1) Where are these teams going to play? Would cities that have hopes of one day seeing a NHL team through movement or expansion want to make a mistake like wronging the league and allowing a product like this to go on?

2) Who is going to front the capital? These things cost money to run. Where does it come from?

3) How are the players going to be paid? They aren't going to work for free and will want guaranteed contracts.

4) Wh is going to insure this league? Nothing happens without insurance.

5) How are they going to challenge for the Stanley Cup when the trophy is entrusted to the NHL, until its disolution, by the Hockey Hall of Fame?

You're delusional if you think the NHLPA can over come the basic challenges of starting up a league. Its not as easy as finding some guys who want to play, renting some ice and throwing the sticks in the middle. You have no clue how complex this is. I have a feeling the NHLPA is in a similar position.

1. Rent ice. Do not ask for the cities permission.

2. Read the shares part.

3. The players are the new owners.

4. Insurance companies.

5. "We challenge for the Stanley Cup because we think we're better than you"

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

1. Rent ice. Do not ask for the cities permission.

Just rent ice. Get serious. You need some pretty significant licencing to hold an event like a professional hockey game. You don't get to have a gathering of 10,000+ people without having the city involved. Law enforcement has to be involved. Licencing for the venue has to be involved. The cities come into play greatly. You can't just "sneak" one by them.

2. Read the shares part.

Where do the players come up with the money for this? We're talking several tens or hundreds of million dollars to underwrite such a proposal. The marketing alone is going to be in the millions of dollars.

3. The players are the new owners.

4. Insurance companies.

Where is the money coming from? Do you have any idea what the insurance is on a single player who is making $10 million? A Chris Pronger is still going to have to be insured for his NHL salary, incase of injury. That is if someone would cover him at all. New enterprises face extramely high insurance rates, so it may not even be practical to insure players meaning the top players could not play without risking their careers. Have fun trying to convice a carrier that this is a good risk.

5. "We challenge for the Stanley Cup because we think we're better than you"

It doesn't work that way. The NHL has control over the trophy until the disolution of the league. It cannot be presented without their approval and the approval of the Hockey Hall of Fame. The HHOF is not going to award the Stanley Cup to some fly by night league, no matter who is playing in it.

You're out of your element. This is way over your head.

 

[Crosbyfan]

You asked:

1) Where are these teams going to play? Would cities that have hopes of one day seeing a NHL team through movement or expansion want to make a mistake like wronging the league and allowing a product like this to go on?

I answered in context

To which you replied:

Just rent ice. Get serious. You need some pretty significant licencing to hold an event like a professional hockey game. You don't get to have a gathering of 10,000+ people without having the city involved. Law enforcement has to be involved. Licencing for the venue has to be involved. The cities come into play greatly. You can't just "sneak" one by them.

The rest of your post was no better.

Now give your head a shake.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

You asked:

1) Where are these teams going to play? Would cities that have hopes of one day seeing a NHL team through movement or expansion want to make a mistake like wronging the league and allowing a product like this to go on?

I answered in context

To which you replied:

Just rent ice. Get serious. You need some pretty significant licencing to hold an event like a professional hockey game. You don't get to have a gathering of 10,000+ people without having the city involved. Law enforcement has to be involved. Licencing for the venue has to be involved. The cities come into play greatly. You can't just "sneak" one by them.

The rest of your post was no better.

Now give your head a shake.

No, you answered without thought. There was no context, it was just throwing out what you thought it took to run a league. Admit it. Move on.

 

[Crosbyfan]

No, you answered without thought. There was no context, it was just throwing out what you thought it took to run a league. Admit it. Move on.

You missed the OBVIOUS. I answered with as much thought as you gave your questions. If I am wrong I am very sorry.

 

[me2]

Since everyone wants a competitive League with healthy franchises and feel the players should be the ones that subsidize the whole thing by agreeing to a Salary Cap heres an idea:

The NHLPA agrees to a salary cap but they can sell new franchises as they see fit(even in the markets of the successful teams). That way they would receive the revenue from the sale of the franchise and at the same time retain some control of the "demand" side of their commodity (which is of course the players).

I know the NHL would never agree to this because they want to want to control both the demand and supply of elite hockey while maximising profits (AND growth in value of their franchises) all while the players are subsidizing their mistakes (overexpansion, hiring of Bettman etc etc) but what the heck; it's not like the owners are ready to accept any other reasonable proposal at the moment.

The NHLPA could start by putting their best players on two teams, say, the New York "Yorkies" and the Toronto "Toroes" and challenging for the Stanley Cup this spring. They could then (Stanley Cup in hand) continue to negotiate but add more teams in the fall if the NHL won't negotiate but only wants to continue painting the players as the "villains".

Eventually, if the owners continue their "we're only going to pay you what the poorest team can afford" ways the "NEW HOCKEY LEAGUE" (NHL for short?) can add more teams and even invite some of the more reasonable old teams to join them. They could "break" the owners before the owners "break"them.



Worth a try?

If the players want teams they should buy existing teams that are for sale by outbidding everyone else. Maybe they could buy the weak teams and run them and then keep the old CBA. Then they could run $60m payrolls in places like Anaheim, Carolina and Florida and others then fund any losses from the taxes on NHLPA members.

Since the owners are lying the NHLPA would make millions from running Florida, Anaheim and Carolina.

 

[me2]

Alright group, humor me on this: Why can't the NHLPA start up their own league?

It seemed absurd until I thought about it but the NHLPA has the marketable asset--the best players. I am certain that fans would pay to watch the Toronto Rotten Fish if it was stocked with NHLers. Probably more so than the Leafs stocked with scabs and AHL caliber talent.

Just a thought, not any more absurd than the owners starting up an alternative league without the best talent.

Players will have to go through the following order to make it work

a) finding rinks big enough to hold teams

b) finding markets big enough to hold teams that have spare rinks (16000+ minimum)

c) finding markets big enough to hold teams that have spare rinks and like hockey

d) finding markets big enough to hold teams that have spare rinks, like hockey and won't hold a grudge and not go to games. roughly 50% of fans won't watch scabs and 50% would say screw you to the players for killing my NHL team


e) find 30 markets big enough to hold teams that have spare rinks, like hockey, fans that won't hold a grudge and will provide enough money to make more for the players than the NHL would have

f) find 30 markets big enough to hold teams that have spare rinks, like hockey, won't hold a grudge and will provide above NHL revenue streams and then convince enough players to risk their life savings to pay for the salaries of other players who refused to chip in and risk funding the rest from NHLPA pension fund

g) find 30 markets big enough to hold teams that have spare rinks, like hockey, won't hold a grudge and will provide above NHL revenue streams, convince enough players to risk their life savings & pension, and then agree on their own salaries. Now that would be funny because the NHLPA would be forced to pay the players what they asked NHL teams to pay them. Massive salary explosion time unless the NHLPA opposed players salary increases.

When Joe Thornton holds out for $9m from the team owned by Forsberg and Sakic, a team $50m in debt, debt Forsberg and Sakic are struggling to afford does the NHLPA side with the owners or the player?

Overcome those few very small hurdles and they players are rich.

 

[Reilly311]

The NHLPA agrees to a salary cap but they can sell new franchises as they see fit(even in the markets of the successful teams). That way they would receive the revenue from the sale of the franchise and at the same time retain some control of the "demand" side of their commodity (which is of course the players).

No, what the players need to do is realize that the NHL won't start up unless there is a cap.

 

[quat]

Since everyone wants a competitive League with healthy franchises and feel the players should be the ones that subsidize the whole thing by agreeing to a Salary Cap heres an idea:

Jumping in here kind of late, but if the players are being offered over 50% of revenues, how can they be subsidizing the whole thing? Your question is missleading and incorrect.

The suggestion doesn't really make any sense either as a way of solving this dispute.... or just as an idea.

 

[me2]

This should be started the minute the NHL cancels the season. Possibly 4 teams rather than 2 could be formed to challenge for the Stanley Cup this spring (may I suggest Quebec and Winnepeg added to my original two?) They don't need to worry (for now) about the legal details (Lord Stanleys intentions, the fact that the NHL has no players, never mind that they no longer are the elite of North American Hockey as required by the post 1940's trustee guidelines etc etc). All they need to do is start a 4 team challenge series stating that the top 2 will offer a challenge for the Cup. Don't tell me you wouldn't watch.

Yes, this will leave a lot of unemployed NHLPA players but if the season is cancelled that would be 4 more teams playing than not. The schedule would have to be minimal for this year to allow things to be run professionally but if it was the top players available playing on the 4 teams the hockey would be incredible.

If there was still no deal starting October '05 they could run a 6-8 team league. More teams would be problematic and the smaller group would build a following more quickly with fans. Something like a 40 game schedule for each team would be feasible.

Each NHLPA player would receive one "share" in the new league (with the provision that the league would collapse if a new CBA could be reached at the NHLPA discretion). Players could buy additional shares,

Buy shares in a league that is designed to be folded? Exactly how much do you expect to make from a folded franchise in a league that no longer exists? NIL at best, probably much less than nil after expenses. Who is on the hook for those?

up to 1 per year of NHLPA membership (money would be refunded when available if the league was collapsed by the NHLPA).

The teams would play with a salary cap in the range of one third offered by the present league, say 12 million. (this is not being hypocritical

Yes it is. Its conceding everything the NHL has said about players being too expensive for the markets.

as they have potential to gain in other ways: sale of franchises if the league suceeds, temporary employment as the strike continues, and above all improved bargaining power in negotiations with the NHL owners that are hell bent on breaking their Union)

The remaining players could do what they would be doing otherwise, playing in Europe or the AHL etc but would be discouraged from becoming replacements for the NHL as they would lose any shares in the new league.

I can see it know: "You want me to fund a league that 85% of us can't play in and while telling us to take $100K in the minors rather than rejoin the NHL? Lets see, $1.3m in the NHL or pay for shares in a league that is designed to go bust, has no fan base, no strong markets and no rinks. The NHLPA to Go and get ******."

The main thing is opening up a second front. More bargaining power, more options, more hope. What other choices do they have. IF the new league succeeded they could write their own CBA and if they want to subsidize weak markets/teams they can do it on their own terms.

 

[Crosbyfan]

All of the above can be done on a pay as you go basis for the most part. Most of what is at risk is NHL level salarioes which "do not exist as we speak". Most of your objections are that the NHL level product cannot be duplicated on an AHL budget level. So what? It doesn't have to compete with an NHL product since at present and during the negotiations no product of that level exists in N.A.

 

[misterjaggers]

Apparently you were thinking an investment and a subsidy were the same thing.

The owners have been taking a beating and now it's the players' turn.

 

[Crosbyfan]

The owners have been taking a beating and now it's the players' turn.

I think you hit the nail on the head. This is the owners attitude (some owners) and this is a terrible position to be negotiating from if they want to bargain in good faith. They are looking for a win/lose agreement.

 

[Crosbyfan]

Jumping in here kind of late, but if the players are being offered over 50% of revenues, how can they be subsidizing the whole thing? Your question is missleading and incorrect.

The suggestion doesn't really make any sense either as a way of solving this dispute.... or just as an idea.

Let's say you are a famous brain surgeon and I'm a somewhat clutzy operating technician. We form a team and charge $1,000/hr. If you get 54% and I get 46% am I subsidizing your wage?

Or are you subsidizing mine?

 

[misterjaggers]

I think you hit the nail on the head. This is the owners attitude (some owners) and this is a terrible position to be negotiating from if they want to bargain in good faith. They are looking for a win/lose agreement.

It's a zero-sum, win-lose situation in professional sports. The owners negotiate the CBA collectively; the players negotiate the CBA collectively. It's like a bilateral monopoly. The relationship cries out for the self-imposed regulation of a salary cap formula.

 

[NYIsles1*]

You just don't understand, do you?

We've got three leagues in the NHL

We've got the real major league teams. (Detroit, Rangers, Philly, Colorado, etc)

All due respect, I do not think you understand.

All these teams are reportedly losing revenue.

Colorado would not support hockey when they were not winning and spending and had to relocate. The Detroit market never was considered a big market until they started spending. The Rangers are the eighth team in their region, get no print, have had problems filling the building for years and even with Msg behind them only drew a rating equal to 60,000 homes last year (0.7) per game in the tri-state area.

That's only 5,000 more homes than the Islanders were seen in 1998-99.

Did Philadelphia produce major league ratings going to game seven of the conference finals?

Sorry, but IMHO this is not major league at all. That's why there are problems.

 

[Crosbyfan]

Sorry, but IMHO this is not major league at all. That's why there are problems.

And yet they think they are deserving of the best hockey talent in the world... and on their own terms.

 

[me2]

Let's say you are a famous brain surgeon and I'm a somewhat clutzy operating technician. We form a team and charge $1,000/hr. If you get 54% and I get 46% am I subsidizing your wage?

Or are you subsidizing mine?

neither and both, depends on the contracts and the amount of work

for example

Lets assume famous guy was charging $1000/h and doing 50 hours per week and clutzy guy was charging $500 and doing 50 hours a week then they join forces. Now both are doing 50 hours per week and charging $1000/h.

famous guy has gone from 50000 -> 52000
clutz guy has gone from 25000 -> 48000

So famous guy is now making $2000 per week from Clutz guy's labours. Who is subsidising who?

 

[me2]

All of the above can be done on a pay as you go basis for the most part. Most of what is at risk is NHL level salarioes which "do not exist as we speak". Most of your objections are that the NHL level product cannot be duplicated on an AHL budget level. So what? It doesn't have to compete with an NHL product since at present and during the negotiations no product of that level exists in N.A.

Pay as you go?

a) Renting costs more if you only rent as a series one offs.

b) The rink will want to know when to schedule concerts etc. How do you expect to run a season without booking the rink months advance? Cancelling bookings will cost money.

 

[quat]

Let's say you are a famous brain surgeon and I'm a somewhat clutzy operating technician. We form a team and charge $1,000/hr. If you get 54% and I get 46% am I subsidizing your wage?

Or are you subsidizing mine?

Neither. And this example is not helpful.

Parents, volunteers and the general public do in fact subsidize players pretty much until they are ready for pro. The players don't subsidize anything, as they are not giving up anything they are "entitled" to. There is a new contract being negotiated. Are they going to take less in this contract? Yes. That still doesn't have anything to do with subsidy. You have chosen the wrong word to explain what your idea.

 

[quat]

neither and both, depends on the contracts and the amount of work

for example

Lets assume famous guy was charging $1000/h and doing 50 hours per week and clutzy guy was charging $500 and doing 50 hours a week then they join forces. Now both are doing 50 hours per week and charging $1000/h.

famous guy has gone from 50000 -> 52000
clutz guy has gone from 25000 -> 48000

So famous guy is now making $2000 per week from Clutz guy's labours. Who is subsidising who?

This is interesting... but both are necessary to get the job done... and one could argue that it's a simple case of overpayment for someone who is rather incompetent.

Anyhow, I think this is really bending the existing definition of "subsidize"

 

[Crosbyfan]

This is interesting... but both are necessary to get the job done... and one could argue that it's a simple case of overpayment for someone who is rather incompetent.
Anyhow, I think this is really bending the existing definition of "subsidize"

Bettman?