Free Market??????

[bling]

The owners did not expect or envision the arbitration process to take such a toll.
The past is the past. But I might add that we were not prive to the negotations at the time and don't know if the league wanted also the right to invoke arbitration on a player that no longer produces. So it became a one way deal. The owners have paid dearly for some mistakes. So the players get to keep money. Going forward well it's a whole new ball game. It's time to stop losing money. Some clubs lose money outright, some clubs end up making just a little. So little that the top paid player may make more money then the owner. It's the owner that risks his money not the player. If the players would risk money at the same level then the owners you might find the NHLPA singing a different tune.

One more thing. The NHLPA does not trust the owners bookeeping and so uses this excuse to insinuate that the owners hide money and refuse a CAP. This is crap.
for years the NHL wanted the NHLPA to join them in the bookeeping so this issue would be put to rest. But no, the NHLPA refused but still constantly insinuates fraud. This whole question is easily fixed. A joint bookeeping and any owner caught hideing money pays the same amount in penilty to the NHLPA retirement fund. So now bring on the dam CAP and be done with it. But the NHLPA would never agree to this so it's all moot.

WTF??? Another one of those wishy washy people who goes back and changes their entire post in the midst of a discussion!

Man does that destroy your already thin credibility!

 

[Seachd]

If this CBA is and was such a bad deal why was it twice extended? If the owners have been bled dry by this CBA for 10 years why was it twice extended? If all the teams have been losing so much money for all these years, why was it twice extended?

One answer is pretty obvious, and it's been stated many times: different economic situation.

Players are guaranteed to make money in the NHL. How does the NHL wanting to limit its losses make it greedy?

Players refusing to agree to a concept that lowers their average salary from $1.8 million to $1.3 million, and taking jobs from other players on the other side of the planet that actually need that money sounds pretty greedy to me.

 

[bling]

One answer is pretty obvious, and it's been stated many times: different economic situation.

Players are guaranteed to make money in the NHL. How does the NHL wanting to limit its losses make it greedy?

Players refusing to agree to a concept that lowers their average salary from $1.8 million to $1.3 million, and taking jobs from other players on the other side of the planet that actually need that money sounds pretty greedy to me.

Wrong....the owners claim to have been losing money throughout the course of the CBA's 10 years. My point is that they kept extending a money losing agreement because they were getting the expansion dollars to offset the losses so they went along with Gary's plan until they expansion money dried up.

Are you not guarenteed to make money in your job? Why should the players not be guaranteed to make money in their jobs?

Would you agree to take such a large paycut so that your employer could make a higher amount of money for himself?

 

[Seachd]

Are you not guarenteed to make money in your job? Why should the players not be guaranteed to make money in their jobs?

Would you agree to take such a large paycut so that your employer could make a higher amount of money for himself?

I didn't say the players shouldn't make money.

Not all owners are making money.

The NHL wants to make the league healthy again, which is, in the opinion of the NHL, not possible with the current situation, or with the players' "proposal". This attempt is necessary.

The players want to keep their salaries sky high. This is greed, obviously. I'm not sure what else you can call it. If the players were underpaid, I'd see their point. Their not, so I don't.

 

[YellHockey*]

Does your boss send a car to your home to bring you to work every morning ? Does he pay for your gas? No, he says" it's up to you to get to work on time" or else !!

Do the owners do that for home games?

No. But they do pay for their travel expenses on the road. Just like almost every employer does for employees that are on business travel.

 

[bling]

I didn't say the players shouldn't make money.

Not all owners are making money.

The NHL wants to make the league healthy again, which is, in the opinion of the NHL, not possible with the current situation, or with the players' "proposal". This attempt is necessary.

The players want to keep their salaries sky high. This is greed, obviously. I'm not sure what else you can call it. If the players were underpaid, I'd see their point. Their not, so I don't.

One thing I need to clarify, it is not the NHL fighting the players it is the team owners. They care only about their own revenue streams and winning a Stanley Cup, two things that can often be in direct conflict. They only care about league health in the sense that it affects them financially.

Once again, If you had earned a high salary would you willingly give up a large part of it so someone else could put it in their pocket?

 

[codswallop]

You do realize that what each side is "asking" for is not what they are realistically expecting to happen?

I have no doubt each side would love it if their demands were met, but they know that's very highly un-realistic. That's one of the reasons why it's called a negotiation.

And the league isn't a "free market". There are arguments that you could technically prove that the NHL is a free market (and subsequent arguments that it 'should' be). But in the real world, those arguments don't hold water. Only a very radical re-structuring of the CBA which no one would agree to could make it so. Why the f*** should we argue about what will never be?

I hope that I'm not prompted to go into "the economics" of this situation. It's boring, and makes damn near no imprint on these boards.

 

[thinkwild]

The CBA provides a framework for the players and GMs to negotiate salaries. Other than a starting artificially low rookie cap, it does not specify salaries, just a method for their negotiation It provides leverages to each side in the negotiations that can be used in the marketplace. There are many heavy restrictions in this marketplace, and they have offered even more concessions to the owners to use in their negotations with players in this highly regulated controlled marketplace that provides everyone equality of opportunity in developing a great team and makes it nearly impossible to buy a Cup.

All the players are asking for is some ability to negotiate in a marketplace at least at some time. And real free agency at least once. If an owner is willing to spend what he calls non-hockey revenue, it must be worth it to him.

Why would you restructure a CBA to create a free market. Why not just use the market. THe highly successful principle that has been very successful in history. Shouldnt the true goal be a perfectly regulated marketplace?

Its not a free market - its the marketplace. A proper marketplace provides the proper checks and balances to ensure fairness and integrity.

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

That's super, but it doesn't answer my question. I'm talking about if the union disbands.

The goal would be to rid themselves of the NHLPA, not to have to deal with a union.

 

[Onion Boy]

Skipping the past three pages, it occurred to me that, economically speaking, in a true free market owners ought to be required to reinvest most of their profits back into the team. A hard salary cap prevents them from doing that and is thus the complete antithesis of a free market.

 

[djhn579]

Skipping the past three pages, it occurred to me that, economically speaking, in a true free market owners ought to be required to reinvest most of their profits back into the team. A hard salary cap prevents them from doing that and is thus the complete antithesis of a free market.

I could be wrong, but I don't remember hearing anyone say that a hard cap is part of, or needed to give the owners a free market.

The issue of free market comes from the players saying that they want to exercise their free market rights to earn whatever the owners are willing to pay, yet the players are not working in a free market environment. In a true free market, there would not be a draft, there would not be salary arbitration, there would not be guaranteed 10% raises. The usual argument is that the players are only refering to a free market when it suits them and that since the NHL is not a free market, there is no reason that a hard cap can't be part of the next CBA argeement.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Players say that they want to play in a free market, they don't want a salary cap? Alright then no cap. NO GUARANTED CONTRACT, no salary arbitration. You perform you get the big bucks otherwise you get cut. Why is it that when a player is playing the last year of his contract huge season after that he signs a fat contract then nothing so you can't blame the fans and the owners to feel cheated.
So the owners are ready to gave the players their free market. Let's see if the players really want a free market or what they want is the NHLPA free market???

Listen skippy, gauranteed contracts have ZILCH to do with the free market.
If an NHL owner doesn't want to live up to Alexei Yashin to a 10-year, 90 Million dollar deal, he shouldn't agree to it.
It's THAT simple.
Contracts should be honored until they expire.
If some numbnuts like Yashin holds out in the middle of a contract, the league and the team should be able to fine him heavily. Perhaps the existing contract should be nullified he should be suspended for three years, or so, and the team compensated with a 2nd round pick.

But existing contracts MUST be honored by both sides.
I'd hate to see an NFL type deal that allows owners to cancel contracts after a guy loses an eye or something.

And what's the beef with arbitration?
It's supposed to help bring players and owners to a quicker deal.
Without arbitration, we'd see more and more RFAs sitting out, and that's not good for anyone.

The simple fact is that the owners are never going to win a CBA that ties salaries to revenue in any way, shape or form.
Not even a soft cap. In order to do so, all of the owners would have to open their books entirely to the PA and agree how to count revenues. Thus far, they've been prickly about opening books.

Revenue sharing will be critical to saving the league. The problem isn't all about player costs (though that is a huge part of it)
The problem is ungodly disparities in revenue.
That's what has led to the crazy salaries. The well-managed big market teams have been able to spend two, three and even four times more than the small market teams.

Failing to address this problem means the league will continue to suffer. And you can't address this problem until teams open up their books and agree to a standard accounting practice.

It's ridiculous for the owners to demand a 33 percent salary cut and a hard cap in the same CBA. There's no way they can win all this in one contract. It's ludicrous to attempt to win so much in one sitting. And the players would be nuts to even negotiate with anyone adopting such a hardline stance.
You can't negotiate with someone who slaps you in the face before you even sit down. And that's what the owners have done with such a moronic offer.

Instead, the owners and the players should sit down and start working on what the players have proposed. Because, to their credit, the players have at least offered some move to a middle ground.

The players have proposed across the board 5 percent paycuts and a luxury tax system.
The owners could probably squeeze the players up to an 8 percent cut, which seriously, isn't bad.
On top of that, they could probably win a luxury tax system which would provide at least some semblance of a salary drag. Admittedly, the players current proposal is very weak. But who knows what the owners could win if they actually negotiated.

The problem is that the owners and Bettman were asleep at the wheel when they agreed to the last CBA extension.
They blew it, even though everyone knew at the time that there were serious problems with the league's structure. They were to busy counting their expansion money to care.
They decided they'd lock the players out and jeopardize the league's future in a few years because they didn't have the stomach to deal with the issue then.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Does your boss send a car to your home to bring you to work every morning ? Does he pay for your gas? No, he says" it's up to you to get to work on time" or else !!

well, i dont think the teams pay for the players to get to home games. However, if your boss told you to be in St Louis tommorow and Detroit in 3 days and then in New York the next day, would you be inclined to work for him if you had to pay to get where your boss schedules you to be ?

as someone who travels alot for work, why would i pay for my own travel ?

DR

 

[Puckhead]

The players don't want a hard cap, there's a difference. Also, I bet the players would be willing to concede lower base, higher incentive-laden contracts if it would help resolve the labor dispute.

I think they would entertain that for about 2 seconds! There is no way they want have non-guarateed contracts. This is what is fundamentally wrong with the whole arbitration system.

Give them the big bucks, but nothing is guaranteed, or give them less and keep the status quo of honouring a contract until it expires. The players can't have it both ways, and up to now they most certainly have.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I think they would entertain that for about 2 seconds! There is no way they want have non-guarateed contracts. This is what is fundamentally wrong with the whole arbitration system.

Give them the big bucks, but nothing is guaranteed, or give them less and keep the status quo of honouring a contract until it expires. The players can't have it both ways, and up to now they most certainly have.

a few points on the guaranteed contract issue:

1) imagine if contracts were not guaranteed. PHI could walk away from John Leclair (9m) and Tony Amonte (6m) and have 15m NOT tied up on old overpaid players. Imagine the damage they could do, even with a cap, if they had 15m more in resources available and two rosters spot to fill (previously filled by old deterirating players) ? I think guaranteed contracts HURTS the big spenders and HELPS the small markets. Unless of course they are stupid and give Roman Turek a huge ugly contract.
2) IF a team gives a player a huge ugly contract, why should we let them off the hook anyway ?
3) guaranteed contracts work both ways. if the owners can walk away from grossly overpaid players, then the players should be able to break contracts where they are grossly underpaid. right ? why is it fair for one and not the other.

 

[thinkwild]

And most arbitration awards are only for one or two years. So its not like you re locked in. The ones locked in for 5 years are UFA contracts, many of which are not paying off as an advantage they thought their money gave them. Signing these is a choice - not a necessity. Most often a bad choice too. There is no need for protection from this failing. And its too late for arbitration.

If you want to hire a polling group for example to do a study for you, and you want the best, and you pay them to some work for you, and then half way through you cancel because you dont like what they are telling you, this is without cost? Or if you brought in a new CEO to lead your company out of its problems. And then want to fire him for unrelated reasons, there is no cost? Where is this idea that the market has no guaranteed contracts? They are negotiated in a market place. A free market for UFAs.

 

[Onion Boy]

I think they would entertain that for about 2 seconds! There is no way they want have non-guarateed contracts. This is what is fundamentally wrong with the whole arbitration system.

Give them the big bucks, but nothing is guaranteed, or give them less and keep the status quo of honouring a contract until it expires. The players can't have it both ways, and up to now they most certainly have.

Who said they'd give up guaranteed contracts? In non-guaranteed contracts, who do you agree on insurance pay? What happens if a guy gets a season ending injury? What do you pay him, if anything?

What I said was, I bet the players would entertain the notion of contracts with lower bases, not no bases at all. For example, what if the NHL proposed as system that put a 5-6mil cap on guaranteed contracts with a max of 3-4mil of incentive bonuses, subject to review by the league to ensure that they are legitimate incentives. They might not agree to the numbers specifically, but I bet it'd be a good negotiating point.