Frustration with NHLPA...

[habitual_hab]

But you just disagreed with me when I said the owners were losing money.

No, I never said that the players weren't losing money - I said they aren't in the dire situation they claim to be. And what I also did say is that the NHL has made some bad decisions that it now wants the players to pay for.

 

[habitual_hab]

Yes they do. Fundamentals aren't at all the subject anyhow. Apples and oranges. This is way more in depth than your hot dog stand.

The other professional sports can't compare, and no business model is close. Hard one to argue with "I pay my people like this, why can't they!" or "This is what Michael Eisner would do!"

Forgive my ignorance. I bow to your omniscience.

As you're the "expert" here, maybe you can answer these questions:

Why is NHL fan support declining? Why are some franchises struggling to stay afloat? Why are TV ratings in the United States shrinking?

 

[Motown Beatdown]

So, how is the NHLPA is at fault for Holik's contract and the subsequent escalation of salaries?

Didn't you know the NHLPA uses some sort of Jedi mind trick on the owners?


I dont think you'll find one person to say the players aren't overpaid. But it shouldn't be the players responsibility to save the owners from themselves. It's as simple as that. The only reason the NHL owners lost 300 million dollars last year is alot of owners spent more than they could afford. I think we've seen lately how important payroll means in terms of winning the Cup or even advancing far in the playoffs. (note the sarcasm)

If a dope like myself can balance a checkbook why cant NHL owners?

 

[habitual_hab]

Yes they do. Fundamentals aren't at all the subject anyhow. Apples and oranges. This is way more in depth than your hot dog stand.

The other professional sports can't compare, and no business model is close. Hard one to argue with "I pay my people like this, why can't they!" or "This is what Michael Eisner would do!"

My "hot dog stand" business has assets. These assets will depreciate over time and this depreciation can be used as an "expense" or a "loss" come income tax time. In your omniscience, you must know that all NHL owners list their players as "assets" on the books and use their "depreciation" as a "loss".

The fundamentals are the same. How they are exploited is different.

 

[codswallop]

Forgive my ignorance. I bow to your omniscience.

He was actually right. The NHL, and all pro sports leagues in North America, are different in their industry structure. They are, basically, oligopolies. One of the Econ texts that I kept from my college days actually uses professional sports as an example of an oligopoly. Which of course is quite different from a free or open market; entry barriers, the input and output of supply, etc. So the arguments that hinge on certain "market forces" are inaccurate, they do not apply the same to an open market as the do to an oligopolistic market.

This is just a simplified version but enough to make the point. And no expert is needed for that (heck knows I'm very far from that), just the ability to read and understand a few basic economic concepts.

Why is NHL fan support declining? Why are some franchises struggling to stay afloat? Why are TV ratings in the United States shrinking?

These are loaded questions. You could write a 40 page brief or a one paragraph summary, either way it's unlikely to give an answer that would stand up to scrutiny. Far too many factors involved, and far too much info we don't actually have needed to answer such questions. Best to let this one go unless you have designs on starting another un-ending and ultimately fruitless debate.

 

[habitual_hab]

He was actually right. The NHL, and all pro sports leagues in North America, are different in their industry structure. They are, basically, oligopolies. One of the Econ texts that I kept from my college days actually uses professional sports as an example of an oligopoly. Which of course is quite different from a free or open market; entry barriers, the input and output of supply, etc. So the arguments that hinge on certain "market forces" are inaccurate, they do not apply the same to an open market as the do to an oligopolistic market.

This is just a simplified version but enough to make the point. And no expert is needed for that (heck knows I'm very far from that), just the ability to read and understand a few basic economic concepts.

While this may be true, I never stated that the NHL or the professional sports industry was the same industry as my "hot dog stand". What I did state was that the business fundamentals are the same. The NHL owners have a product they want to sell. They market their product, sell it to customers and make a profit. They also have assets and liabilities that they can use to limit the amount of profit that appears on their books come tax time. Etcetera, etcetera.

These are loaded questions. You could write a 40 page brief or a one paragraph summary, either way it's unlikely to give an answer that would stand up to scrutiny. Far too many factors involved, and far too much info we don't actually have needed to answer such questions. Best to let this one go unless you have designs on starting another un-ending and ultimately fruitless debate.

The problem with the NHL is it has too many teams carrying too few talent. That's why fans have been stuck with the plodding defensive clutch-and-grab trapping system that has sucked the life out of the game and sent fans off to find other venues of excitement. Did you watch the Finland-USA game, for example?

So now, with labour strife happening, a TV deal with a major US network about to expire and fan support dwindling, the league is belatedly hoping to convince fans and ABC television they're serious about breathing life back into their dull product with a few cosmetic changes like goalie pad width. If I ran my "hot dog stand" the way Bettman ran the NHL I'd be out of business in months, if not weeks.

 

[ladybugblue]

I think the players need to this of the "Market" a little differently. They want a free market system in place. However, they don't want League revenues tied to their salaries. Where is the market then? They should be thinking of the Revenues as the "Market" as the fans are the consumers of the product they are selling. Again the NHLPA needs to work with the NHL to help increase revenues (especially in the U.S.) then tieing the salaries to revenues would work right? If the revenues per team was around $150 million then the team salaries could be around $75 million and everyone would be happy right? Probably not as the NHLPA thinks that tieing revenues to salary is a salary cap so NO it would still be a problem.

The fans are the consumers of a product that in many markets they don't like. Most business' try to find out what the consumers "fans" would prefer to win back their business unfortunately this is not happening either. It doesn't matter whos fault it is but the players need to realize that if a prolonged lock out happens the revenues will be even lower than they are now and then what? Okay they are going to get even less money with 1-2 years of no salary? Does that make sense?

I was listening to the radio in Vancouver yesterday and they had on a business partner of the Toronto Maple Leafs. Now the Leafs did have a profit but he talked about many owners that are happy to sit out a season or two as in many cases they would lose about $22 million a year during the season but only lose $7 million if there is a lockout. As a business owner it doesn't take much to figure out what they will do. In the end the fans lose out but we don't have a say. I hope that even if there is a lockout the results will mean a long term solution that fits everyones needs, the business owners (I don't want to hear about one more bankruptcy there have been too many), the players (increased salaries by increasing the quality of the product on the ice) and ultimately the fans...where we get to see great teams and wonderful trades (that are not based on salaries). I don't want to hear about the money side of salaries and stuff. The first time I heard about money related to hockey was when Gretzky was sold to the LA Kings. It has been non stop ever since. How about talking about what great game is being played not how much so and so got in arbitration...I think it will be a long two years to come.

 

[codswallop]

While this may be true, I never stated that the NHL or the professional sports industry was the same industry as my "hot dog stand". What I did state was that the business fundamentals are the same. The NHL owners have a product they want to sell. They market their product, sell it to customers and make a profit. They also have assets and liabilities that they can use to limit the amount of profit that appears on their books come tax time. Etcetera, etcetera.

I wasn't in on the hot dog stand part of this, wasn't trying to reference it.

And your right, that is basic business. The problem I was having is that it is rarely if ever that simple in the interpretation of specific problems. That's not just about what you posted, but it has to do with many past threads in general. What sticks with me is that some of these very particular problems and situations we are discussing, we do not have sufficient info to discusss it and even possibly come close to the reality of the situation. Yet some people continue to talk with such confidence, assuming with few doubts that they are correct. And often times they flub simple business and economic concepts; their arguments are flawed from the start yet they'll never admit to it.

I'm not saying that I'm some sort of business guru, quite far from it. Miles and miles away from it. But I realize what I know and what I don't know. And believe me, what I don't know dwarfs the little that I do know. I don't have the arrogance to pretend otherwise, and one of the few things that gets under my skin is those that do. I often handle that with humor, not getting upset. But at times bearing the claws is necessary, only way to get that point across. That's not really the case here, just trying to explain why my last post may have seemed a bit grumpy.

The problem with the NHL is it has too many teams carrying too few talent. That's why fans have been stuck with the plodding defensive clutch-and-grab trapping system that has sucked the life out of the game and sent fans off to find other venues of excitement. Did you watch the Finland-USA game, for example?

So now, with labour strife happening, a TV deal with a major US network about to expire and fan support dwindling, the league is belatedly hoping to convince fans and ABC television they're serious about breathing life back into their dull product with a few cosmetic changes like goalie pad width. If I ran my "hot dog stand" the way Bettman ran the NHL I'd be out of business in months, if not weeks.

Yeah, wasn't that into the game last night. Liked the hitting, but other than that... I'll pass.

Unfortunately, that's what a large part of the league is now. It goes without saying that most of us would prefer the run-and-gun of the 80s, but that era is over for good. It's not coming back, I've swallowed that very difficult pill. But I heard another theory about the defensive style of today that made more sense than the "dilution of talent" theory.

Europeans came pouring into the NHL in the late 80s and early 90s, and that is still happening today. That's not a debatable point. The talent level in the NHL jumped significantly, so much so that the idea of new franchises could work given all that extra talent. Now did the NHL go overboard in giving out franchises? That's debatable but even I'll give a yes on this (only to two less teams though). And let's not forget that training has also jumped by leaps and bounds over the last 20 years. Players quickly become bigger and faster and stronger. The fact is that their is more talent in the league than there was before expansion, and I can dig up a couple of studies that show this to be true. The defensive style were put into place not because of lack of talent, but they were instituted to stop all the talent that was there. Some of these coaches finally realized that defense actually does win championships, and trying to do it by offense is much too risky. They taught their teams to clamp down and it's now evolved into a system where you can apparently mug any player you want and only get a minor penalty every now and then.

The debate about the style of play and what it's doing to the NHL is something I've never discussed much, never felt the need for it. For me, it would be frustrating and unproductive at best. I'll pass on that.

 

[thinkwild]

As far as I know, here's what the NHLPA has offered the NHL owners:

a five-percent giveback to the league on the full value of all existing contracts; changes to the Entry Level System both in terms of a cap and percentage of the cap that can be paid in signing bonus; a revenue-share system from on a pool collected from an aggregate of payroll luxury tax, regular-season and playoff gate taxes and revenue tax that would be distributed to clubs meeting qualifying criteria, including attendance performance." Furthermore, the NHLPA was willing to address such issues as salary arbitration and qualifying offers.

To simplify the proposal further, the players are willing to give back nearly $65 million in payroll every season. They're willing to address the problems with bonus clauses circumventing the rookie salary cap. They're willing to address revenue sharing to assist smaller market clubs to better compete with their big market peers, and they're willing to consider changes to salary arbitration and how much a team must spend to qualify their restricted free agents.

link

Looks to me like the NHLPA is negotiating in good faith but the owners insist on installing a hard salary cap or no go. IMO, Bettman and the owners are not negotiating in good faith at all and the 2004-2005 season might be the first time in a long time that there are no Stanley Cup playoffs.

(After an alleged $300-million in losses the NHL gives Bettman a new contract until 2008(?). If Bettman was the CEO of any other corp. he'd be out on the street. IMO, the owners are the architects of their problems [Holik, Jagr, Sakic, Tkachuk, Yashin, etc. contracts, Bettman's expansion & promises of investment returns that turned out to be Nasdaq-like and the evaporation of US TV deals] and are trying to force the NHLPA to bail them out.)

That was a good link, thanks. I agree with you, nice posts, it looks to me too like they are bargaining in good faith. How can Daly just dismiss these proposals out of hand. They directly address his problems and include significant changes and money.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

salaries have doubled or tripled in the last few years, they expect it to keep up like that.

Why should players expect the owners to keep doubling their salaries if they don't want to?

lying does not improve your point. the players dont care if they make more or less, they simply refuse to do it in a salary cap enviroment.

dr

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

The problem is if an owner doesn't go out on the market and spend, fans label them as cheap. Fans also tend to respond by NOT buying tickets to the games. Agents call these cheapskate owners out, even--or at least praise those that actually pay. An owner that doesn't spend is ALWAYS deemed cheap and unwilling to pay for a winner. Those are terms ALWAYS used by the NHLPA, player agents and players themselves. THEN, if they do spend they're labeled as dumb--eventually--when it's revealed just how badly the owner overpaid for said player. So, the owners really can't win, can they?

This was a good post, but I think you are mixing up the issues. One issue advanced by the owners and many ignorant fans is that there is a competitive balance problem in the NHL. There is not a competitive balance problem. The second is a financial problem which may or may not exist.

I think there is a lot of truth in this first paragraph, but I think it is still fundamentally wrong. The fans are wrong to correlate spending money and building a good team. Lots of teams have boosted sales temporarily by acquiring a star like Jagr or Messier. But it does not help the team and when the team loses the fans bail. That's the only thing that really works to jam a hockey rink. A winner. Win and nobody gives a rat's ass about payroll. Lose with a high payroll and the fans are left disgusted with the players. Lose with a low payroll and they are disgusted with the owner. Losing leads to disgust and low sales. Winning leads to losts of sales, and high prices whether the team is expensive or not.

The rest is media bunk and message board fluff. It doesn't mean spit. Fans won't spend on a loser and they open wide for a winner. That's true in every market.

If the highest salaries belonged to the BEST players in the league, REGARDLESS of age and experience, the league would be thriving right now.

I disagree entirely. That is the best thing about the NHL CBA. It is what assures competitive balance when the revenue generating ability varies so much. It means teams buy winners. I can't see why the owners have not been able to figure out this system. Players start out being underpaid, relatively speaking. The poorest market can afford Sidney Crosby. The average wage doubles when players acquire arbitration rights and then doubles again as they approach free agency. The players are no longer worth it. It's crazy.

You mentioned John LeClair, who is an excellent example. When he won that contract, I said the Flyers were crazy. No way he could mean that much to any hockey team. The best player in the league can't help a team enough to pay him that much. The owner's can't have it both ways. They can't complain the rich teams are ruining competitive balance by signing LeClair when an idiot can see he is not worth it. The typical player starts deteriorating at age 32, and on average, lose 25% every year thereafter.

Ray Whitney! I had bitter arguments with Canuck fans when I said that the Canucks would be crazy to sign him. Palffy? I wouldn't pay him $6 million unless I thought he could lead me to a Stanley Cup and I don't think that.

These guys are lousy investments. There is ample evidence that this is the case. Nobody can name three "salary dumps" where the dumping team did not win the trade hands down. If it sells tickets in the short run, the manager still has to take a pass if he wants to operate properly.

Before player's hit free agency, costs are tightly controlled and the CBA tilts in the owner's favour. Rick Nash and Ilya Kovalchuk are worth more than what they got. A Jovanovski is a bargain when he is half the price of a Pronger. I'd rather have Ed at the same price because I think he is more likely than Pronger to win a Norris in the next three years.

Why do the owners spend so much on players in decline? Because of fan and media pressure? That's a silly reason to do what is so obviously the wrong thing to do. Why did Ted Leonsis decide to ignore the advice of George McPhee and go after Jagr then sign him to a $50 million contract?

Then to turn around and blame the players? That's crazy, but never mind that. It was obviously stupid to sign Bill Guerin to a $45 million contract. It was so stupid, Hicks was trying to sell him the following summer. Why did he do it? Why do any of them do it?

Tom

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Why is NHL fan support declining?

Is it?

Why are some franchises struggling to stay afloat?

Which ones?

Why are TV ratings in the United States shrinking?

Lousy teams in the biggest cities.

Tom

 

[Jets4Life]

Is it?



Which ones?



Lousy teams in the biggest cities.

Tom

LOL....You're joking right? Hockey had way better ratings in the mid 1980's than today. Guess who was the dynasty that won 5 Stanley Cups those years? The EDMONTON OILERS, population: 900,000. A small market team.

It has noting to do with big cities. if you don't believe me, just watch an NFL game. GREEN BAY, WI: population: 160,000!!!

 

[Russian Fan]

LOL....You're joking right? Hockey had way better ratings in the mid 1980's than today. Guess who was the dynasty that won 5 Stanley Cups those years? The EDMONTON OILERS, population: 900,000. A small market team.

It has noting to do with big cities. if you don't believe me, just watch an NFL game. GREEN BAY, WI: population: 160,000!!!

What you need to understand & to prove is ?

Can you relate the struggling of a franchise to the CBA ?

I can almost relate 75% of the struggling franchise due to BAD MANAGEMENT & BAD ACCOUNTANT.

 

[Sanderson]

It's not bad management when someone wants a salary comparable to someone working in a way more lucrative market. The GM wouldn't suddenly stop to spend more money than he should, because he would loose even more. If your income is based on your employee's reputation, you just cannot choose a salary that works for you.

The owners know that some of them spent more money than they had. Most of them didn't want but had to, so their income wouldn't reduce even more.
Now they want to correct this and the employees do everything to prevent them from reaching their goal, because they would loose money and influence...

A union should have no influence whatsoever on what the owners can and want to spend. They should be there to prevent a rich company from lowballing their employees, not stopping a company with problems from consolidation.

If the NHL really had a free market, there would be no Arbitration and no guaranteed contracts. The teams should be able to fire their employees if they want to, without having to pay a big compensation.
Because companies in reality, using a free market system, tend to do that, if they are in financial trouble...

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

LOL....You're joking right? Hockey had way better ratings in the mid 1980's than today. Guess who was the dynasty that won 5 Stanley Cups those years? The EDMONTON OILERS, population: 900,000. A small market team.

I don't think there was any hockey on TV in the US in the 1980's and ratings in Canada are probably just as good today if not better despite the fact that a TV viewer has manmy more options today. The best ratings ever for hockey in the US was 1994. The SCF that year between Vancouver and New York had a big audience on both sides of the border.

It has noting to do with big cities. if you don't believe me, just watch an NFL game. GREEN BAY, WI: population: 160,000!!!

I don't believe you and watching an NFL game does not convince me of anything.

Tom

 

[Russian Fan]

It's not bad management when someone wants a salary comparable to someone working in a way more lucrative market. The GM wouldn't suddenly stop to spend more money than he should, because he would loose even more. If your income is based on your employee's reputation, you just cannot choose a salary that works for you.

The owners know that some of them spent more money than they had. Most of them didn't want but had to, so their income wouldn't reduce even more.
Now they want to correct this and the employees do everything to prevent them from reaching their goal, because they would loose money and influence...

A union should have no influence whatsoever on what the owners can and want to spend. They should be there to prevent a rich company from lowballing their employees, not stopping a company with problems from consolidation.

If the NHL really had a free market, there would be no Arbitration and no guaranteed contracts. The teams should be able to fire their employees if they want to, without having to pay a big compensation.
Because companies in reality, using a free market system, tend to do that, if they are in financial trouble...

Let's say you are the owner of the franchise that lose 9,323,342$ this year.

You want a new CBA because the numbers seems high & you have a good chance that you might convince the FANS!!! that it's the players fault & the CBA if you loss that money.


EXAMPLE A (THEORIC) :
Now as an owner , you bought an NHL franchise because
1) you are rich
2) you are a succesfull businessman that own a few companies that last year altogether make you richer of 23,544,294$

So as a successful owner of some succesfull companies , you go deeper into your NHL franchise to discover that the ARENA lease your director of operations sign gives you no leverage to make revenues. What do you do ?

Is it bad management ? or because of the CBA ?

If the market that you're in & the management off-ice hockey is not doing their job, maybe there's a difference between LOSING 9M$ & making 15M$

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXAMPLE B : REALITY

The Pittsburgh Penguins TODAY is losing money mostly because their revenues can't match their expense. (ECONOMICS 101).

Is it the CBA's fault ? The Pens is having one the lowest payroll of the NHL, can you blame the CBA for that ?

If the Pens got one of the WORST ARENA LEASE in the NHL & because of that, there's a difference between 0$ in REVENUES in that department & making 25,000,000$ in REVENUES with a NEW ARENA.

Is it the CBA's fault ?

Is it the players fault if the Penguins are in a market where they have the oldest arena in the league & in this arena they have one of the worst lease that can't give them any revenue like the other NHL franchises ?

Stop thinking about John Leclair or Bobby Holik 1 SECOND. Even if the Penguins got 25M$ in their pocket tomorrow , they wouldn't sign Holik @ 9M$. The GM's are so aware today of the economics that they are SHY to give 7M$ to Ziggy Palffy or Pavol Demitra. GM's are shy to give 5M$ to Alex Kovalev.

Can you call that MARKET CORRECTION without HAVING a NEW CBA ?

Do you see why people are so ignorant ? Go in deep of every franchise, you will find they are losing money because they some idiots in that franchise that is doing HIS JOB so bad that not even a charity event would want him close to him.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Great post Russian Fan. Maybe if owners made their GM's accountable their teams would be in alot better financial shape. And by accountable i mean more than just on ice performance.

 

[ladybugblue]

[/QUOTE]---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXAMPLE B : REALITY

The Pittsburgh Penguins TODAY is losing money mostly because their revenues can't match their expense. (ECONOMICS 101).

Is it the CBA's fault ? The Pens is having one the lowest payroll of the NHL, can you blame the CBA for that ?

If the Pens got one of the WORST ARENA LEASE in the NHL & because of that, there's a difference between 0$ in REVENUES in that department & making 25,000,000$ in REVENUES with a NEW ARENA.

Is it the CBA's fault ?

Is it the players fault if the Penguins are in a market where they have the oldest arena in the league & in this arena they have one of the worst lease that can't give them any revenue like the other NHL franchises ?

Stop thinking about John Leclair or Bobby Holik 1 SECOND. Even if the Penguins got 25M$ in their pocket tomorrow , they wouldn't sign Holik @ 9M$. The GM's are so aware today of the economics that they are SHY to give 7M$ to Ziggy Palffy or Pavol Demitra. GM's are shy to give 5M$ to Alex Kovalev.

Can you call that MARKET CORRECTION without HAVING a NEW CBA ?

Do you see why people are so ignorant ? Go in deep of every franchise, you will find they are losing money because they some idiots in that franchise that is doing HIS JOB so bad that not even a charity event would want him close to him.[/QUOTE]



You are so wrong on so many points...
The Penguins are not an example of what is wrong with the NHL as they are an EXCEPTION. They were in bankruptcy not too long ago and have NEVER been on good footing ever since.

The current CBA cannot change the financial stability of the NHL because of the arbitration system plain and simple. The free agents have not been signed to high paying contracts this summer but all arbitration cases made between 50-75% raises. Now tell me did the player that got 3 more goals this year deserve a 75% raise...I think not. Now long term if the owners did not pay out high free agent signing eventually maybe the arbitration system would become comparable but that may take 10 years and about 10 teams would fold. Plus this whole automatic 10% raise to contracts to qualify restricted free agents are absurb. I would love if I got a 10% automatic raise (even if my company was not doing well) ...There should be arbitration rights for owners when a player is not doing his job on the ice...I don't blame players for taking the money but I don't blame owners wanting to change a system that rips him off.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHOSE FAULT IT IS...both sides need to work together and fix it...also does Detroit have an idiot running the team because they lost money the last two years?? I don't think so it is just how it has worked for the last ten years or so...Most teams that have gone deep into the playoffs have been high payroll teams and they are gate driven just as much as small market teams. Teams like Detroit need playoff money to offset their high payroll. They lost more money than some of the small market teams because they had two early playoff exits. I don't think Holland is not doing his job right cause it could have gone the other way...you hit a hot goalie and a hungry team...there are no guarantees that your team will preform...look at LA they would have been a pretty good team but they had a lot of injuries...GMs cannot control everything that happens (unlike many regular business')

You wanna be on the side of the players...fine...but there are many fans that are on the side of the owners...people are NOT ignorant if they don't agree with you...BOTH sides got into the mess both need to make compromises

 

[Russian Fan]

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHOSE FAULT IT IS...both sides need to work together and fix it...also does Detroit have an idiot running the team because they lost money the last two years?? I don't think so it is just how it has worked for the last ten years or so...Most teams that have gone deep into the playoffs have been high payroll teams and they are gate driven just as much as small market teams. Teams like Detroit need playoff money to offset their high payroll. They lost more money than some of the small market teams because they had two early playoff exits. I don't think Holland is not doing his job right cause it could have gone the other way...you hit a hot goalie and a hungry team...there are no guarantees that your team will preform...look at LA they would have been a pretty good team but they had a lot of injuries...GMs cannot control everything that happens (unlike many regular business')

You wanna be on the side of the players...fine...but there are many fans that are on the side of the owners...people are NOT ignorant if they don't agree with you...BOTH sides got into the mess both need to make compromises

I understand this & agree with this but the problem is that NHLPA made offers & owners want a hard cap or a lockout.

I'm not saying NHLPA offer is the best but at least they are willing to make compromise in order to help the owner while having what they are looking for which is having a free market (sort of).

 

[ladybugblue]

I understand this & agree with this but the problem is that NHLPA made offers & owners want a hard cap or a lockout.

I'm not saying NHLPA offer is the best but at least they are willing to make compromise in order to help the owner while having what they are looking for which is having a free market (sort of).

This would only work if the the luxury tax kicked in around the $30-35 million mark at least until they can get the game have more revenues (i.e., much better TV deals).

As a fan of the game it is just really frustrating to hear some of the stuff coming out of the NHLPA (their PR people aren't very good). Ted Saskins (I think that is who is part of the NHLPA) said that what the NHL is asking for is a cut that is taintamount to a cut from $60,000 a year to $40,000 a year and how would you feel...well to all the fans that make that amount and less that buys tickets to the game that pay for the salaries that a player cannot take $4 million a year rather than $6 million. Not very many fans are gonna cry a river for them...Unions are good for the people that are employed by people that pay them $40,000 a year when they should be getting $60,000...not for millionaires and you won't find too many sympathizers.

I love watching hockey and I lived in Edmonton who had sell outs almost every single game but still completes (though rarely gets out of the first round) and I lived outside of San Jose that has fan support when the team is a contending team...I paid my hard earned dollars to see them and they all they do is complain that they can't continue to make millions well if the game was really great the good players would be getting endorsements that is what Wayne Gretzky did and he never got paid what the average player is making but he did make a lot of money on endorsements...I don't have sympathy because I am a fan and I think they are being greedy. Maybe I would be too but I think I could manage quite nicely making even a million year for 20 years...I could retire early...maybe they need to learn how to manage their money too.

Awe well we probably won't see what system is in place for at least a year or more so all we can do is just wait and see how they resolve it.

 

[thinkwild]

The current CBA cannot change the financial stability of the NHL because of the arbitration system plain and simple. The free agents have not been signed to high paying contracts this summer but all arbitration cases made between 50-75% raises. Now tell me did the player that got 3 more goals this year deserve a 75% raise...I think not.

Im not so sure. Think about Crosby. IF there was no rookie cap, what would he get. THere would be teams that would pay a lot of money if there was some chance you could actually buy him. Surely someone would make a $10mil offer.

But under this CBA, the most he can make for the first 3 years is 1.3mil and he is on a 2-way contract where he can be sent to the minors, causing loss in pay.

Years 3 and 4 he has no arbitration, no leverage. Giving him a 10% raise is a pittance compared to what he is worth.

Come his 1st arbitration in his 6th year, he gets a 100% raise to $4mil. Still less than half his likely market value. It may be a 100% raise but it is certainly worth it when you think of it this way.

Players are going to get raises each year. Overall though there is no reason with retirement, recruitment you cant keep the overall salary in check even though players get big raises each year. Just like any company, people get raises as they get older. Companies plan for it.

If all the teams only used RFAs, there shouldnt be a problem. They all make the salaries we all say are reasonable when we complain about the players making the $10mil contracts.

Its a rare RFA who will command $10mil anymore.

 

[Jag68Sid87]

Excellent post right back at you, Tom. Here's my rebuttal:

"This was a good post, but I think you are mixing up the issues. One issue advanced by the owners and many ignorant fans is that there is a competitive balance problem in the NHL. There is not a competitive balance problem. The second is a financial problem which may or may not exist."

It has yet to be proven that a team that DOES NOT SPEND a lot of money can maintain a certain level of competitiveness over time, IMHO. Detroit, Colorado, Philadelphia, Toronto and even New Jersey have had to spend a lot of cash to keep their teams in the Cup contender tax bracket. The Carolinas, Buffalos, Anaheims and Calgarys are overnight playoff sensations, but what happens after the fairy dust has settled? What a salary cap does is FORCE teams to make difficult decisions on player personnel. This causes a shift in the balance of power automatically, and creates a far more balanced situation league wide--again, this is all in my humble opinion. Wouldn't it be neat if we could see how each of the 30 NHL GM's would decide to build their rosters if there was an actual range of salary they could spend? I, for one, would love to see how the Toronto market and Edmonton market would handle a similar payroll situation.

"The fans are wrong to correlate spending money and building a good team."

It may be wrong, but it's the truth. Gone are the days when fans paid a modest sum to watch their favorite team (and those fans didn't have to worry about who was on their team because teams remained virtually intact). Nowadays, there is a plethora of competition for joe fan's entertainment dollars. And, since there can ONLY be 1 winner in every professional sports team, you can't really market "Future Stanley Cup champions" because anything can happen in the world of sports. Ask Blackhawks fans, or Maple Leafs fans, or even worse still Red Sox and Cubs fans. Heck, I'm an Expos fan
It's far too idealistic to expect fans to simply be excited about having a competitive team. If you're shelling out thousands of dollars to watch a hockey team, I think you want MORE bang for your entertainment buck. And like it or not, not all the BEST players at the moment bring out the fans. Jeremy Roenick, for example, is a definite marketing coup for any team that acquires him. He sells tickets. He generates media excitement. So, to answer your question NO it's not ALL about winning. There are other factors for market survival in each and every pro sports city.

"These guys are lousy investments. There is ample evidence that this is the case. Nobody can name three "salary dumps" where the dumping team did not win the trade hands down."

I know the term 'win the trade hands down' is subjective, and I know this is all semantics but...
1)When Jagr went to Washington for Beech, Lupuschuk and Sivek, the Caps won the deal hands down. No matter what happened afterwards, the deal was definitely advantage Washington all the way.
2)When the Habs traded Recchi back to Philly for Zubrus because they couldn't re-sign Recchi, Philly won that deal hands down. Canadiens did well to get something for Zubrus afterwards, but Philly won that original deal no doubt about it.
2)When the Red Wings traded for Chris Chelios, all the Hawks have to show for it is Steve McCarthy and Adam Munro. Advantage Detroit, no doubt.

I understand what you're saying about salary dumps in general, but sometimes the team buying actually gets a great player for several more seasons.


"Why do the owners spend so much on players in decline? Because of fan and media pressure? That's a silly reason to do what is so obviously the wrong thing to do. Why did Ted Leonsis decide to ignore the advice of George McPhee and go after Jagr then sign him to a $50 million contract?
Then to turn around and blame the players? That's crazy, but never mind that. It was obviously stupid to sign Bill Guerin to a $45 million contract. It was so stupid, Hicks was trying to sell him the following summer. Why did he do it? Why do any of them do it?"

The simple truth is SOME OWNERS ARE STUPID. Some are reckless. Some just don't care about anybody or anything else. To think that all 30 owners of a business like professional sports can act responsibly is like having a boatload of Hooligans in your bar and asking them to only drink your bottled water. Good luck with that. If it's an admission of stupidity that the players want, then I urge the owners to come clean. All it takes is 1 George Steinbrenner or Mike Ilitch and the entire house of cards comes tumbling down. THAT's why a salary cap is needed. This shouldn't be about ego, but it is. Players HATE the fact that the owners cannot keep their individual houses in order, but the truth is they CAN'T. They won't. Done. It's official. This just in. Sucks but that's the way it is.

The question now becomes, what are we going to do about this? Find owners to replace the reckless ones? Say what you will about Mike Ilitch, Tom Hicks, Dolan in NYC and others, but owners such as Jeremy Jacobs in Boston are probably worse. After all, at least Ilitch and co. have a REASON to raise ticket prices, what's Jacobs' excuse???

Bottom line: A salary cap is the best way to get the owners on the same page, for once. It's the best way to eliminate the two extreme ways of thinking that permeates within any ownership group of any pro sports league. Does anybody really think Jerry Jones, Daniel Snyder and Al Davis wouldn't spend bushels and bushels of money to improve their respective NFL teams if they COULD. Similarly, why doesn't Jacobs spend more to keep SOME of his talent? Or in baseball the same could be said of Carl Pohlad in Minny, or Steve Schott in Oakland. IF there was a cap in either hockey or baseball, along with a salary floor, they'd be forced to put some of their earnings back into their team...where it should be going all along.

The problem I have with the players association is that they constantly say things like, "Well, if the owners don't have the money, why are they still signing us to these contracts?", but deep down none of them want to see the owners smarten up now do they? It's easy to say that, because the players always know that if so and so won't sign him for what he wants, somebody else will. Must be nice. If the well runs dry, then what?

For me, it's simple. In the players' world, it's the owners who build teams. In a salary-cap world, it's the GM's that build the teams. Which do you prefer?

 

[Licentia]

I don't know about the rest of you but am so frustrated. I know a lot of people blame the current labor problems on the NHL and owners and some people blame the NHLPA. It really doesn't matter the NHL and owners may have made the problem by offering outrageous salaries but they are trying to fix it without any players losing their jobs. Why don't the players look at this like a regular business? If the company I work for had 75% or even 70% of the revenue going to salary they would slash staff...trust me they do this all the time. What frustrates me is that the NHLPA thinks anything tied to Revenues is a salary cap I say this is complete bull. In the movie business if actors etc said to the producers I want our salaries to be 65-70% of revenues they would be laughed at. And lets face it hockey is entertainment and a business pure and simple.

This is my proposal for a solution:
Every player has a base salary of $1 million to $2.5 million depending on age of the player. This would be league wide. Coupled with this would be performance based incentives such as a bonus if you reach 50 goals in the year etc. and bonuses would be the same league wide. The bonuses would be tied to the revenues of either their respective team or the league (either way could work). The bonus would be a percentage of the revenues (but within reason). For example:
5 players under 25 and they get paid $5 million
10 players between 25-32 they get paid $20 million
5 players over 32 get paid $12.5 million

Total base salary is $37.5 million

Now say the revenue for a team is around $58.3 million (this is just the number that the league provided in terms of revenue divided by 30 teams...I am sure it would be different but for arguments purpose...) and say you are the Tampa Bay Lightning and you are Brad Richards or Martin St. Louis say the bonus for winning the Stanley cup is 1% and the Con Smythe is 2% as well as the Hart Trophy, Art Ross. The two players would be making $3.749 million and $4.915 million and the team salary at the very least would be $58.488 million.

Now this doesn't leave much room for profit but say the owners does not have hand out huge salary increases the following year because they are set and the revenues increases by 20% because the sell out more games and get a higher paying local TV deal because of their success. The revenues would be $69.96 million and say the same thing happened the salaries would be for the two players $4.0988 million and $5.498 million and team costs would be $62.6856.

Now if the team failed to make the playoffs and the revenue only increased to 10% (no playoffs) then the owners would have a healthy profit that year.

I know this will be completely shot down (by poster and the like) and the the players would NEVER go for it but this would solve two problems:
1. Salaries seem to be every going up but revenues are not increasing as quickly.
2. The product on the ice needs to get much better and this would force players to work hard for the money they earn. The more success as a team or player the more money they would get.


Either way we know nothing will work with the two sides right now it is just so frustrating. Either they have to lower salaries or at least 10 teams need to fold and the NHLPA loses 300 jobs for its members. I hope the members know this may very well happen. I don't like this idea either why don't the players and owners work together to get the league healthy and at least watched on TV in the U.S. the ratings say it all down here...Poker and about 10 other sports events are more popular...this is part of the problem.

I'm not going to argue with NHLPA fans anymore... Hopefully.

Anyway, I like your post. I would like to see a system like you mention. 1 million to 2.5 million base salary for players depending on how long they've been in the league, plus revenue based % bonuses for performance.

Any system that gives a base salary that is low plus bonuses for playing good is terrific, because it encourages players to be their best, and gives teams a break from paying underacheivers.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

1)When Jagr went to Washington for Beech, Lupuschuk and Sivek, the Caps won the deal hands down. No matter what happened afterwards, the deal was definitely advantage Washington all the way.

id argue that PIT won that deals hands down. what did WSH get for their 11m that PIT didnt get by not having him ?

dr