Fairness for the NHLPA

[Crosbyfan]

Uh huh. Now you're starting to get it. The players are not going to play for free, especially those big name players that have said so many stupid things in the media. When you have players making millions of dollars you need lots of fans. How many fans are going to run right out and support a new league that is charging $100 a pop for a ticket? This is what you're going to see for prices. The amount of money required to cover the salaries, insurance and building costs alone are going to be outrageous. Its not an option. Not at all. Its logistically not feasible.

So they are threatening to go the distance against the NHL but if they want to start something in the mean time, on a break even or better basis; then you feel they have to go big and duplicate the present "oversized" NHL complete with bells and whistles and at the same time draw full major league salaries from it? (because that certainly wasn't my proposal)

 

[me2]

OK , so it is money.
I guess I considered that a given.

Why is so much more capital required for a major league than semi-pro?

Players salaries !

They still need rinks capabable of providing them with adequate revenue. Unless their plan is to play lots of outdoor games in flooded football stadiums.

There is also insurance. If Pronger blows a knee in a NHLPA Mickey Mouse game and never plays again, the NHL restarts he'll loose $10s of millions. Pronger is going to want his career insured for at least $30-50m even if he's only being paid $100K/y by NHLPA Mickey Mouse league.

 

[quat]

For (potential future) equity.

The problem is, it would take at the very least half a dozen years to build even some equity, and by then a good proportion of the present players carreers are done. Now the new "owners" will be the guys playing the game, and like todays players, they are going to demand "all the money". "Hey, we're why the fans are coming to the games... not for some old has beens... etc, etc." At least that would be in line with what todays players are talking about. So i fthe guys who actually suffered and built the league actually want something, they're going to have to figure out how to get it from the players... maybe they'll even have to split revenue. I wonder if they would fight over that negotiation... lol. It would be the same bloody thing you have today except it would be "Owners who were Players" against "Owners who are Players". Wonder what Gretz and Mario have to say about this?

 

[Crosbyfan]

The problem is, it would take at the very least half a dozen years to build even some equity, and by then a good proportion of the present players carreers are done. Now the new "owners" will be the guys playing the game, and like todays players, they are going to demand "all the money". "Hey, we're why the fans are coming to the games... not for some old has beens... etc, etc." At least that would be in line with what todays players are talking about. So i fthe guys who actually suffered and built the league actually want something, they're going to have to figure out how to get it from the players... maybe they'll even have to split revenue. I wonder if they would fight over that negotiation... lol. It would be the same bloody thing you have today except it would be "Owners who were Players" against "Owners who are Players". Wonder what Gretz and Mario have to say about this?

Right now (when playing) the players should be setting aside a substantial portion of their incomes in investments. With this "Start their own League Proposal" the players would forego income (but not at the rate they are now while locked out) in favour of gaining equity which would be admittedly much less diversified yet not otherwise unlike the investments they would/should be converting their excess income into anyway. When/if it pays off and they are the owners of the elite level hockey league then they better play it smarter than the present owners (success would be at the expense of the present owners "the NHL" so in this scenario the NHL would have proved to overplay their hand). If they got to greedy the future players would obviously have a proven model (start their own league) to follow.

My point through this whole thing is that the NHLPA BETTER have options other than "we can outwait the owners", because they can't win against the "Big Eight" whoever they are.

 

[djhn579]

Right now (when playing) the players should be setting aside a substantial portion of their incomes in investments. With this "Start their own League Proposal" the players would forego income (but not at the rate they are now while locked out) in favour of gaining equity which would be admittedly much less diversified yet not otherwise unlike the investments they would/should be converting their excess income into anyway. When/if it pays off and they are the owners of the elite level hockey league then they better play it smarter than the present owners (success would be at the expense of the present owners "the NHL" so in this scenario the NHL would have proved to overplay their hand). If they got to greedy the future players would obviously have a proven model (start their own league) to follow.

My point through this whole thing is that the NHLPA BETTER have options other than "we can outwait the owners", because they can't win against the "Big Eight" whoever they are.

How many players are currently making enough to invest these days? From what I hear, most of the NHL players in Europe are barely making enough to cover their insurance. The NHLPA stipend will definitely help, but how long will it take them to save up enough to start their ouwn league? How many players are experienced at running a hockey league? How are they going to convince the top young players to play in their league for free when they can make lot's of money (with less risk) in the NHL? How are the players going to convince any one else with money to invest in their league with the stance they are taking in the current negotiations and the current state of the NHL? How are they going to convince their own members to not play in the NHL while they are trying to get their new league running? Will the NHL need to declare an impasse if the players try to start their own league?

I think there are quite a few major obstacles that the players will have to overcome, and it will take quite a few years before they can get running in any credible fashion (just look at the WHA). If the players go this route, they will lose a lot of money...

The fact is, the players don't really have any better options than to try to wait the league out (unless they agree to the NHL's terms that is...) Nothing they can do is going to give the same opportunity to make money than they will have in the NHL, even under a cap.

 

[grego]

Yes maybe the NHLPA could try to start their own league but

Then this would likely be considered a situation where they are no longer trying to bargain with the NHL in good faith. I know I would definately find it very hard to feel that the NHLPA was trying to come to a resolution with the NHL when they were doing this kind of action. It seems like an incredible conflict of interest for the NHLPA to do that.

If this is valid then it would also be equally valid for the NHL to suspend operations, and every owner throw in a dollar for an entrance fee to their own new league they will start and own. All of them in exactly the same cities and everything. Essentially just making their own new league. In this situation the owners have the advantage of having all the money and everything. The could even allow their own coaches and scouts to be employed by the new league and tell them there will be no penalty for doing so.

Then they would just have to find people to fill the spots. As an NHL team if I couldn't find NHLPA players I would look to Europe and the AHL league if I had to.

In the end no matter what the players want to do. The owners will win because they have much more money. It costs much more money to run a league then you would imagine.

 

[Crosbyfan]

Yes maybe the NHLPA could try to start their own league but

Then this would likely be considered a situation where they are no longer trying to bargain with the NHL in good faith. I know I would definately find it very hard to feel that the NHLPA was trying to come to a resolution with the NHL when they were doing this kind of action. It seems like an incredible conflict of interest for the NHLPA to do that.

If this is valid then it would also be equally valid for the NHL to suspend operations, and every owner throw in a dollar for an entrance fee to their own new league they will start and own. All of them in exactly the same cities and everything. Essentially just making their own new league. In this situation the owners have the advantage of having all the money and everything. The could even allow their own coaches and scouts to be employed by the new league and tell them there will be no penalty for doing so.

Then they would just have to find people to fill the spots. As an NHL team if I couldn't find NHLPA players I would look to Europe and the AHL league if I had to.

In the end no matter what the players want to do. The owners will win because they have much more money. It costs much more money to run a league then you would imagine.

All of which begs the question "Why don't they just cave in then"?...or moreso "Why did they not cave back in September"?

Where are they pinning their hopes?

 

[grego]

Hoping owners will cave I guess.

Though they could be in for a long wait, I think, if that is what they are looking for