(How) The NHLPA Lost its way

[NJD Jester]

I'm still bothered by this notion that it was wrong for the players to distrust the owners.

The owners had two sets of books: One for the sponsors and one they were willing to have analyzed and "open" to the players. We know this not only from some press reports, but also because there has to be a reason beyond mass insanity companies continued to pour money into what's been characterized as a financial Titanic.

So beyond ownership playing with their numbers, the players were also faced with this little dilemma: How do you believe a group of owners that is crying poverty out of one side of their mouths and gladly pitching mulit-million dollar deals that seemingly go beyond their financial means out of the other side? How can anyone blame the players for questioning ownership's plight when ownership's plight is, frankly, unbelievable?

 

[SuperUnknown]

I'm still bothered by this notion that it was wrong for the players to distrust the owners.

The owners had two sets of books: One for the sponsors and one they were willing to have analyzed and "open" to the players. We know this not only from some press reports, but also because there has to be a reason beyond mass insanity companies continued to pour money into what's been characterized as a financial Titanic.

So beyond ownership playing with their numbers, the players were also faced with this little dilemma: How do you believe a group of owners that is crying poverty out of one side of their mouths and gladly pitching mulit-million dollar deals that seemingly go beyond their financial means out of the other side? How can anyone blame the players for questioning ownership's plight when ownership's plight is, frankly, unbelievable?

It's not that it was wrong, but in a conflict concerning these kind of amounts, you have to quantify things and just not deal on an impression.

If you look at the economics surrounding the game and the different events that preceeded these talks, it wasn't that hard to see there were economical problems to the game. Maybe not for 30 teams, but for a portion large enough to make the league questionable in itself. As well, in a game of outlasting the other party, the one that always bend is the party that has the most to lose. The players, even with conservative numbers, were the ones collecting the lion's share out of revenues, by a large margin (since those revenues were going directly into their pockets, while not a lot of dough was going into the majority of owners). This meant that they could not afford a waiting game, where they'd lose in the end (just like what is happening). As I pointed out early on, for the owners, making $100M profit out of a $2B industry or a $1B industry doesn't matter that much for them. However, for the players, every dollar lost to the industry was a direct loss to their collective pockets. As well, all the new owners (team buyers) were all singing the same song: "we're buying because there's going to be a cap after the next cba negociations".

Anyway, all this to say the "distrust" approach was a really weak one, inexcusable for a union this size and involving all this money. With an operation this size, there is no excuse for the NHLPA leadership not to have settled this in the best way they could.

 

[GSC2k2*]

I'm still bothered by this notion that it was wrong for the players to distrust the owners.

The owners had two sets of books: One for the sponsors and one they were willing to have analyzed and "open" to the players. We know this not only from some press reports, but also because there has to be a reason beyond mass insanity companies continued to pour money into what's been characterized as a financial Titanic.

So beyond ownership playing with their numbers, the players were also faced with this little dilemma: How do you believe a group of owners that is crying poverty out of one side of their mouths and gladly pitching mulit-million dollar deals that seemingly go beyond their financial means out of the other side? How can anyone blame the players for questioning ownership's plight when ownership's plight is, frankly, unbelievable?

Wow. I mean "wow".

Are you actually suggesting that these "two sets of books" as you put it were actually full of made-up numbers? Is that what you are suggesting?

Are you still suggesting that owner's pleas of losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars are in fact FALSE???!?

 

[NJD Jester]

Wow. I mean "wow".

Are you actually suggesting that these "two sets of books" as you put it were actually full of made-up numbers? Is that what you are suggesting?

Are you still suggesting that owner's pleas of losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars are in fact FALSE???!?

Wow...I mean, "wow."

No, I'm not suggesting that. I think the NHL has been mismanaged to the point where it's silly to think teams weren't losing money.

But the fact remains that the league was painting a sunnier picture to those investing in the NHL through sponsorship. And the owners did little to convince the players that their teams were bleeding money when all they did was keep paying them ridiculous percentages of their revenues.

I'm not saying the owners haven't lost money, although the amount they've lost is up for debate. I'm saying that all things considered, you can't kill the union for questioning the numbers the owners presented.

 

[Resolute]

But you can kill the union for refusing to take the NHL up on it's offers to go through the books themselves and point out the flaws, and you can most definitely kill the union for refusing to negotiate what constitutes hockey revenue and how it is reported until about two weeks ago.

The union's meathod of dealing with the distrust of the books was to plug it's fingers in it's ears and repeat "I'm not listening. LALALALALALALALALALALALALALLA"

 

[danaluvsthekings]

I agree that you can't really blame the players for not trusting the owners especially if you go back to the days when Alan Eagleson was head of the NHLPA and in bed with the owners. The NHL had been screwing the players for years under Eagleson and there are still a few players left in the league from Eagleson's days as head of the NHLPA. If the owners (granted not many owners are left from those days) did things like trying to screw players out of disability insurance money and things like that, I can understand why a player would think "Well they screwed players in the past, they're trying to get a salary cap now that is linked to revenues, they're not going to be honest with the numbers." Especially if you hear reports that owners aren't counting luxury box revenues and so on. That mistrust is going to be there for quite awhile and I don't think the players can really be blamed for that. That being said, the players should have asked for copies of the books to go over with their own accounting experts a lot sooner than they did rather than sticking with the "They're lying" defense for not looking at the numbers.

 

[dedalus]

And the NHLPA's mistakes are going to bounce back towards the other Unions. The NBA's CBA talks have already shown that the NBA is feeling strengthened by how the NHL has held together and is pushing for some of its more contriverial ideas for its new CBA (Contract length shortened, draft age raised, etc).

The key for other leagues will be to align their small market forces well enough. Bettman was brilliant in establishing a mere eight teams as his necessary bottom end of support. We all knew (or at least anybody with eyes not wearing NHLPA-licensed glasses knew) that with such a small minorty needed to keep a lockout going, the league would win. There could be no doubt that Bettman would always have at least eight hawks who would support total war. The large market owners who might normally undermine lockout efforts knew this, too, and knew that as a result of this arrangement, their only hope was to stay solid and follow the lead of the hawks that could squelch a deal.

If the other league commissioners can arrange things such that they need only 1/3 support, it's inevitable that they will win. Even the strongest unions can't sustain a job action with only 50% support much less minority support. Line up the owners ahead of time such that they can't shoot themselves in the foot when the pressure's on, and the end result is foregone conclusion. Simple as that.

It would be nice to see it in MLB, but can you imagine Steinbrenner's reaction when you propose that eight teams will hold the fate of the league in their hands?

 

[Street Hawk]

think about it......

The key for other leagues will be to align their small market forces well enough. Bettman was brilliant in establishing a mere eight teams as his necessary bottom end of support. We all knew (or at least anybody with eyes not wearing NHLPA-licensed glasses knew) that with such a small minorty needed to keep a lockout going, the league would win. There could be no doubt that Bettman would always have at least eight hawks who would support total war. The large market owners who might normally undermine lockout efforts knew this, too, and knew that as a result of this arrangement, their only hope was to stay solid and follow the lead of the hawks that could squelch a deal.

Actually, for the NHL to adopt anything I believe that they need a 3/4 majority. So, what is 3/4 of 30 NHL teams? 22/30 is only 73.3%, therefore, 23 teams is required to pass anything.

So, this entire thing of Bettman's 8 is overblown IMO.

 

[PecaFan]

But the fact remains that the league was painting a sunnier picture to those investing in the NHL through sponsorship.

Well yeah, it's called "life".

When they're doing a tax assessment on my house, I say it's a run down hovel. When I'm selling my house, it's a mansion.

 

[Spungo*]

Ah, another spankfest by the pro-owner yahoos coming up. Oh boy oh boy.

Maybe we could wait to see what the CBA actually looks like before dancing your happy dance on Goodenow's grave? Maybe?

Rock hard cap *with* linkage... BWUAHAHAHAHAHA! Goodenow got smoked!

 

[kdb209]

Actually, for the NHL to adopt anything I believe that they need a 3/4 majority. So, what is 3/4 of 30 NHL teams? 22/30 is only 73.3%, therefore, 23 teams is required to pass anything.

So, this entire thing of Bettman's 8 is overblown IMO.

You may beleive that, but you would be wrong.

A supermajority is only needed if GB does not approve a deal.

If GB gives a thumbs up, only a simple majority (16 teams) is needed to approve a deal.

If GB gives a thumbs down, a 75% vote (23 teams) is needed to approve a deal over his objections - hence 8 teams can block a deal.

In '95 only a simple majority was needed and the big market teams did enough lobbying to get a deal approved over GB's objections. As a result of that, GB had the supermajority requirement put in as a term in his contract, to prevent the same thing from happening again.

 

[Pepper]

Actually, for the NHL to adopt anything I believe that they need a 3/4 majority. So, what is 3/4 of 30 NHL teams? 22/30 is only 73.3%, therefore, 23 teams is required to pass anything.

So, this entire thing of Bettman's 8 is overblown IMO.

8 are required to drop any deal, you got it backwards.

As long as there were 8 hawks, any deal not good enough for them was not going to get through.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

It's kind of funny that the PA supporters now resort to simple insults and quips at this point. They understand that their best arguments have been thoroughly ransacked and they too understand that the writing is on the wall. Bob is done. The PA lost.

I'd really love for someone out there to convincingly prove otherwise without using arguments like 'you're a pro-owner yahoo,' or some assinine and juvenille fantasy of how Bob is secretly putting in loopholes or that this was what the PA wanted all along or that a 36m cap is someone better than a 42.5m cap because it has a floor of 22m or that the PA couldn't have possibly known that the owners wouldn't crack, or that linkage makes this deal better for them when they have vigorously opposed linkage for the past 240 days.

A $36M cap can be better than a $42.5M cap, there are tons of other issues which have a huge affect. The cap is only one part of it, but you talk like it's the only thing that matters and a lower cap is automatically a worse deal...pretty stupid.

 

[Mothra]

I agree that you can't really blame the players for not trusting the owners especially if you go back to the days when Alan Eagleson was head of the NHLPA and in bed with the owners. The NHL had been screwing the players for years under Eagleson and there are still a few players left in the league from Eagleson's days as head of the NHLPA. If the owners (granted not many owners are left from those days) did things like trying to screw players out of disability insurance money and things like that, I can understand why a player would think "Well they screwed players in the past, they're trying to get a salary cap now that is linked to revenues, they're not going to be honest with the numbers." Especially if you hear reports that owners aren't counting luxury box revenues and so on. That mistrust is going to be there for quite awhile and I don't think the players can really be blamed for that. That being said, the players should have asked for copies of the books to go over with their own accounting experts a lot sooner than they did rather than sticking with the "They're lying" defense for not looking at the numbers.

well.....wouldnt logic tell you that they also can not trust their own union leadership?

 

[NJD Jester]

Well yeah, it's called "life".

When they're doing a tax assessment on my house, I say it's a run down hovel. When I'm selling my house, it's a mansion.

Oh, I agree. I think we all fudge the numbers here and there. But that has little to do with what we're talking about here.

 

[SENSible1*]

8 are required to drop any deal, you got it backwards.

As long as there were 8 hawks, any deal not good enough for them was not going to get through.

The 8 hawks needed Bettman on their side. If Gary signed off on a deal the Hawks needed 16 votes to kill it.

 

[chara]

I will reserve judgement until after a new CBA surfaces. Sometime soon would be nice.

That said, Goodenow should have thought this thing through. He lost a whole season by playing chicken with the owners. He had to realize that it wasn't going to work twice in this lifetime. After the 24% PR stunt backfired, he should have handed the reins over to Saskin in January to negotiate a settlement. While hindsight is 20/20, this is a case where any good negotiator has to realize that eventually he has to make another move. Like a game of chess, every move has a counter. Goodenow failed to counter, grasping onto the remote hope that the owners would move back and concede. Not twice in this lifetime.

 

[GSC2k2*]

well.....wouldnt logic tell you that they also can not trust their own union leadership?

Oh ..... SNAP!!!!

Outstanding post.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Oh, I agree. I think we all fudge the numbers here and there. But that has little to do with what we're talking about here.

WEll, it does, actually. Godenow has been around the block once or twice. He knows the score on the "two sets of books" point. Yet, for public consumption and the players' consumption (who are far less sophisticated), he played it up as an issue of trust.

To me, the actual truth is that trust never has been an issue here. Goodenow was never prepared to negotiate a cap system, so (as has been pointed out by many posters from both sides), it would have been contradictory to that position to look at them. Goodenow stated on WFAN that he was comfortable with his knowledge of the state of NHL finances based on the numbers presented. Trust was never anything more than a red herring that Goodenow allowed the Bryan McCabes of the world to fly off the handle about, deflecting the real issue (that he did not want that type of system, preferring instead the baseball system as negotiated by the most successful sports union ever).

I am sure there is an element of a desire to be his sport's Marvin Miller as well poking around his psyche. That would never work for Goodenow unless he was able to manufacture the necessary outrage that baseball players eventually felt, which fuelled theri resolve in their epic battles. Goodenow tried to manufacture a trust issue here, but it eventually dried up.

 

[nyrmessier011]

these articles are the most repetitve stories over and over again. i feel like ive read that article 25 times in the passed.

 

[Ronald Pagan]

A $36M cap can be better than a $42.5M cap, there are tons of other issues which have a huge affect. The cap is only one part of it, but you talk like it's the only thing that matters and a lower cap is automatically a worse deal...pretty stupid.

I assume that we both have the same information which is that the league is close to inking a 32-36m cap with the same provisions as the 42.5m cap such as benefits and performance bonuses are built into that final number.

We can speculate all we want about anything else that may be in the CBA that would make this better for the players but right now we are going off what we know. Which is not a bad position. There has not been anything else to indicate that this deal is somehow better for the players. So going by what we know, this deal is not better for the players, it's removed 180m from the potential league wide payroll expenditures.

Infact, the fact that this deal has linkage and some are suggesting that that is a win for the PA is ludicrous. The PA was adamamently against linkage for the whole year. Why is it's inclusion now somehow a win for them? It's like a boxer losing a match but because he lost and got to go home early he was able to catch the bus home and save the $20 for a cab and someone saying well the losing boxer actually won in the end. He lost as the PA lost this part of the deal because they were so against it from the beginning.

To suggest that the players held out for a year and won because of linkage that may someday kick in after 5 years is silly. When the average career of an NHLer is 3-4 years they lost 25-33% of their total gross to only maybe make it back and then some at some unforeseen point in the future which may or may not come to be. To suggest that that may be a better deal is also pretty stupid. Remember, I'm just going by what we know, not by what might come to be.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

I assume that we both have the same information which is that the league is close to inking a 32-36m cap with the same provisions as the 42.5m cap such as benefits and performance bonuses are built into that final number.

We can speculate all we want about anything else that may be in the CBA that would make this better for the players but right now we are going off what we know. Which is not a bad position. There has not been anything else to indicate that this deal is somehow better for the players. So going by what we know, this deal is not better for the players, it's removed 180m from the potential league wide payroll expenditures.

I don't think it's the same provisions as the $42.5M. In fact it was reported that arbirtation and QO's are going to be what was offered by the PA in Dec. rather than what was offered by NHL in Feb. I believe that's a 10-15% difference in QO depending on the player. We also know that there is going to be a decent amount of revenue sharing which is good for everyone. That can only strengthen the weak markets and that helps the players as well as the league.

It has not removed $180M from payroll. Potential means nothing, that's like saying an $x cap is too high because if everyone spends to it the league will go broke. You have to judge it on what will happen, not best/worst case scenarios that are unrealistic. Only a few teams would be spending that extra couple of million, especially with a luxury tax and especially this year. And since there is a floor, some teams are pulled up and the overall market isn't as depressed as it would be if you dropped the cap and didn't add a floor. Players don't lose a lot of money next year eventhough the cap is lower.

Infact, the fact that this deal has linkage and some are suggesting that that is a win for the PA is ludicrous. The PA was adamamently against linkage for the whole year. Why is it's inclusion now somehow a win for them?

I haven't seen anyone on here suggest linkage is an overall win for the PA so I don't know what you are talking about. It's inclusion could/probably will make the deal better than the hard caps they have been offered though. You have to realize that if at any point a proposed hard cap is lower than what linkage could place a cap at since revenues will most likely rise, then linkage is better. $42.5 and the last NHL offer I believe was $37.5M...those are hard caps that won't move over this CBA. If linkage is going to increase the cap over 6 years, and if you believe that it will increase to a point past the hard caps that were offered, than it makes more sense to take the linkage. The PA was against linkage a year ago because they didn't want a cap at all, and plan B was probably to get a hard cap high enough that it would be beyond a linkage cap. Didn't work out, and now that the hard cap offers are low enough, it makes sense to take linkage. Not an overall win, but linkage is probably better than $42.5M hard cap.

To suggest that the players held out for a year and won because of linkage that may someday kick in after 5 years is silly. When the average career of an NHLer is 3-4 years they lost 25-33% of their total gross to only maybe make it back and then some at some unforeseen point in the future which may or may not come to be. To suggest that that may be a better deal is also pretty stupid. Remember, I'm just going by what we know, not by what might come to be.

Again, no one is suggesting that, at least not me. Also they only lost 1/3rd of a season and some playoff money, not a whole year of salaries. Neither side was going to agree to anything until February, so by not taking $42.5M and waiting for a possibly better deal, they lost 3 months of salary and playoff money.

 

[me2]

A $36M cap can be better than a $42.5M cap, there are tons of other issues which have a huge affect. The cap is only one part of it, but you talk like it's the only thing that matters and a lower cap is automatically a worse deal...pretty stupid.

Linkage is an NHL initiative, always has been. The NHLPA opposed proper linkage not supported it.

The NHL offered the unlinked $42.5m cap because the NHLPA didn't want linkage. It was seen by many pro-PAers as a win for the NHLPA at the time (under the "you can't trust the owners' numbers" argument).

Now the PA is accepting linkage, history seems to be getting a rewrite......

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

I don't think it's the same provisions as the $42.5M. In fact it was reported that arbirtation and QO's are going to be what was offered by the PA in Dec. rather than what was offered by NHL in Feb. I believe that's a 10-15% difference in QO depending on the player. We also know that there is going to be a decent amount of revenue sharing which is good for everyone. That can only strengthen the weak markets and that helps the players as well as the league.

WTF? Nice spin. So it was better to leave $10 million on the table in hopes of getting qualifying offers for players UNDER $1M bumped 10-15%? Okay Sparky, do the math. How many players does it take to equal $10 million when you are getting a 10% bump on your sub-$1M salary? I'll give you a hint. More than is on ANY NHL roster at one time. Its actually better than FOUR complete rosters. Wow! Big win! Leave the $10 million on the table for that 10% on something under a million! Brilliant!!!

Revenue sharing has always been in the mix. The NHL has been talking in the neighborhood of $60-90 million, so the deal being proposed now is going to have to equal that or better. Since payroll taxes are projected to be 1-for-1 on anything over $29 million, and a cap set at $36 million, that means that a maximum of $7 million will be generated for teams that hit the cap. Based on that figure the NHLPA has to see 9 teams hit the $36 million tax to hit the low number and 13 teams to hit the high. I just don't see many teams coming close to that cap number, so I think this is a loss as well. Color me crazy, but I think the NHLPA wanted to see a lot more money in the system than that, and have it distributed to greater audience as well.

It has not removed $180M from payroll. Potential means nothing, that's like saying an $x cap is too high because if everyone spends to it the league will go broke. You have to judge it on what will happen, not best/worst case scenarios that are unrealistic. Only a few teams would be spending that extra couple of million, especially with a luxury tax and especially this year. And since there is a floor, some teams are pulled up and the overall market isn't as depressed as it would be if you dropped the cap and didn't add a floor. Players don't lose a lot of money next year eventhough the cap is lower.

NEWS FLASH! The league has always has a ground floor level for teams to spend to. That's how banding works and that's how guaranteed revenues works. Try and spin it into a brilliant victory if you like, but when it was always in the proposal its not much of a give. Its not like they got something they didn't already have. And the players don't lose much money? Hmmmm, the players are going to get 54% of revenues versus 76% of revenues from the last deal. Again, spin all you want, but that is a 22% hit in BASE revenues. Include the likely decrease in revenues and you see a huge hit. From $1.5 billion (76% of $2.1 billion) down to $810M (54% of a projected $1.5 billion). That's a substantial hit.

I haven't seen anyone on here suggest linkage is an overall win for the PA so I don't know what you are talking about. It's inclusion could/probably will make the deal better than the hard caps they have been offered though. You have to realize that if at any point a proposed hard cap is lower than what linkage could place a cap at since revenues will most likely rise, then linkage is better. $42.5 and the last NHL offer I believe was $37.5M...those are hard caps that won't move over this CBA. If linkage is going to increase the cap over 6 years, and if you believe that it will increase to a point past the hard caps that were offered, than it makes more sense to take the linkage. The PA was against linkage a year ago because they didn't want a cap at all, and plan B was probably to get a hard cap high enough that it would be beyond a linkage cap. Didn't work out, and now that the hard cap offers are low enough, it makes sense to take linkage. Not an overall win, but linkage is probably better than $42.5M hard cap.

More spin! Man, cut it out. You gota be getting dizzy by now! All along the NHLPA repeated the mantra, "NO CAP! NO LINKAGE!". They were not going to take ANY deal with those conditions in any shape or form. Ooooops, looks like they're getting that rammed right down their throats after all. To add to that, the NHL had offered the NHLPA profit sharing of 50% of anything over $115 million. That profit sharing opportunity is lost. That is money right out of the NHLPA's pockets that they could have had.

[/QUOTE]Again, no one is suggesting that, at least not me. Also they only lost 1/3rd of a season and some playoff money, not a whole year of salaries. Neither side was going to agree to anything until February, so by not taking $42.5M and waiting for a possibly better deal, they lost 3 months of salary and playoff money.[/QUOTE]

You spin me right round, baby right round, like a record, right round round round round!!!

Yup, the NHLPA only lost 3 months salary. Keep telling that to yourself. Forget the $1.5 billion they pissed away with the whole lost NHL season. Hell, they'll lose 1/3 of what they could have made last season just in the drop in revenues from not taking the deal earlier. Its been a cluster foul-up from go for the NHLPA. All the spining you want to do is not going to change how badly they are getting boned.

 

[hubofhockey]

Linkage is an NHL initiative, always has been. The NHLPA opposed proper linkage not supported it.

The NHL offered the unlinked $42.5m cap because the NHLPA didn't want linkage. It was seen by many pro-PAers as a win for the NHLPA at the time (under the "you can't trust the owners' numbers" argument).

Now the PA is accepting linkage, history seems to be getting a rewrite......

How write you are -- and there will be many rewrites come, because all the union has left is spin, spin and more spin.

kpd/hoh