i cant say i understand the PA

[CGG]

Why is it a forgone conclusion around here by most that the NLRB will automatically side with the owners and give their blessing to the impasse and implementation? Becuase there's a 3-2 split favoring republicans? If each and every case that went before the NLRB was voted 3-2 in favor of business, why have an NLRB? Why not just force all unions across the land to accept whatever business tries to force down their throats? Republicans don't have to automatically vote in favour of business. I for one would like to think they would actually listen to the case and vote on its merits.

And for everyone claiming the players won't get a better deal than the one they could have negotiated last week, you're right. But same goes for the owners. How are they better off because of this? Sure, they might end up with a lower cap, but with drastically lower revenues, even with linkage, they are going to be far worse off as well. Why is no one lambasting the owners for not negotiating the best deal they could get last week?

 

[ladybugblue]

1B$ =

loss of this year which we don't know
+
franchise devaluating
+
sponsorship deal cancelled
+
refunding season ticket holder

Thing is if the owners get a cap eventually the franchise values may triple in a short period of time so the short term loss will be off set by a long term gain. At least that is what is being speculated and the owners are willing to take that gamble.

 

[SENSible1*]

Why is it a forgone conclusion around here by most that the NLRB will automatically side with the owners and give their blessing to the impasse and implementation? Becuase there's a 3-2 split favoring republicans? If each and every case that went before the NLRB was voted 3-2 in favor of business, why have an NLRB? Why not just force all unions across the land to accept whatever business tries to force down their throats? Republicans don't have to automatically vote in favour of business. I for one would like to think they would actually listen to the case and vote on its merits.

I agree that the members will decide this case, if it ever comes to fruition, based on the merits. It is however worthy of note that the "merits" of a case can be viewed differently by individuals who bring a pro-union or pro-management bias to the case.

And for everyone claiming the players won't get a better deal than the one they could have negotiated last week, you're right. But same goes for the owners. How are they better off because of this? Sure, they might end up with a lower cap, but with drastically lower revenues, even with linkage, they are going to be far worse off as well. Why is no one lambasting the owners for not negotiating the best deal they could get last week?

No, the same criteria doesn't apply to the owners. They will make their money back and then some. Sure it will cost them short term, but if they get a cap and linkage they will be far better off in the long run.

The players have lost pure profit they will never get back and a year of earning potential. There is no "long-term" for the individual member of the PA.

 

[ladybugblue]

So you think every owner should ask to their employee how to manage they business in order to get healthy in order to not be stress & feel that like they succesfull ?

This kind of questions can go either way.

Now most owners just hand out layoff notices or put new rules in place to cut costs. However these owners cannot do this without the players consent (i.e., CBA) hence the lockout. If this was any other business this wouldn't occur.

 

[habfan4]

Why is it a forgone conclusion around here by most that the NLRB will automatically side with the owners and give their blessing to the impasse and implementation? Becuase there's a 3-2 split favoring republicans? If each and every case that went before the NLRB was voted 3-2 in favor of business, why have an NLRB? Why not just force all unions across the land to accept whatever business tries to force down their throats? Republicans don't have to automatically vote in favour of business. I for one would like to think they would actually listen to the case and vote on its merits.

Set aside the republican issue for a moment: There is a not so subtle difference between regular trade unions and the NHLPA. The most glaring, the number of workers affected, we are not talking about an employer who is affecting thousands or tens of thousands of workers (point being the PA members have politically insignificant numbers). On the flip side the owners do operate other businesses across the US and have significant political pull.

And for everyone claiming the players won't get a better deal than the one they could have negotiated last week, you're right. But same goes for the owners. How are they better off because of this? Sure, they might end up with a lower cap, but with drastically lower revenues, even with linkage, they are going to be far worse off as well. Why is no one lambasting the owners for not negotiating the best deal they could get last week?

As has been pointed out ad naseum - the owners operate a myriad of other businesses, they can afford to take on additional losses in order to secure a return on investment in their hockey franchise.

 

[SuperUnknown]

So you think every owner should ask to their employee how to manage they business in order to get healthy in order to not be stress & feel that like they succesfull ?

This kind of questions can go either way.

You're complaining about the fact the owners ARE now trying to manage their business so it works for them.

Some owners have not been responsible, the payroll difference between teams is too large for a same league (3 times the payroll) and the league is making a loss, most of which comes from franchises with higher payrolls. They're putting solutions to the table that works for them and will help cover these problems but yet you still blame them for anything and everything. They also have the power to get what they want, but that's not alright either it seems. Why not just give up and close the NHL then?

 

[AM]

Unfortuneately

The NLRB rules both parties operate under the terms of the expired CBA.

Hey, you asked.

The prince is all outa kisses for sleeping beuty.

 

[SuperUnknown]

I think Russian fan is arguing the impossible to inflate his post count.

I am going to try and help him out with as simple an analogy I can use. Bear with me Russian Fan. You are a player ok? You get paid a dollar a day. You are locked out and you lose that dollar. Same with the 750 other players, so as a group you are losing 750 dollars every day. I am an owner. I make one hundred dollars a day. But ONE of my many businesses is having labour issues, and do to that I am losing 2 dollars a day. Same with my 29 other owner buddies, collectively we are losing 60 dollars a day.

So, the players lose 100% of their dollars, regardless of the total ($50.00$, 1.5 Billion). The owners are losing a VERY SMALL percentage of their yearly incomes. Some are losing less than they would if they were playing. How, with any kind of logic or rational thought can you sit there and say that the owners situation is as dire as the players? The could fold all 30 teams, write off the loses and go back to making money as a ship builder or Televsion or whatever they do to make the money that allowed them to buy a franchise in the first place. You really need to give you head a shake. Look at things objectively.

Dave

Good post, just one thing to add. The owners is losing 2 dollars a day, but for him it's business as usual since he was already losing 2 dollars a day the year before. So in the end, if you compare to last year, the player went from 1 to 0 while the owner went from 98 to 98. Why would the owners be deranged from this? On the other hand, it's pretty clear the players are affected deeply.

 

[Johnnybegood13]

I'm sorry but if I worth Billions like you said I lose 20M$ & I manage this franchise like it was a toy, it's because 20M$ out of BILLIONS doesn't mean anything , don't you think ? One day you use the argument that the OWNERS cannot afford to lose money & today you say ''HEY THEY ARE RICH AS HELL, LOSING 20,000,000$ IS NOTHING , THEY CAN DO THIS LOCKOUT FOREVER''

And maybe you didn't read anything except what comes from the NHLCBANews.com but the 1,800,000$ is an average not what 50% of the players are having.

Hit me with a stick and call me crazy but:

Players lose:

65 - 76% of league revenues paid in salaries (depending on who you believe)

Owners:

No travel,meals or equipment costs and many staff laid off out of remaining 24 - 35% revenues.

How in gods name can you even consider that the owners are losing out even close to what the players are?
How long can the PA continue paying the players between 5-6 million a month during this mess?.
Goodenow and the players made a brutal mistake not taking the 42.5m cap...his goose is cooked and it will be provin!

A side note: the Calgary Flames alone will make way more money this year then they did before last seasons cup run by not playing at all.I suspect most of the small market teams are in the same boat.

You must be a leaf fan :lol

 

[Steve L*]

So you think every owner should ask to their employee how to manage they business in order to get healthy in order to not be stress & feel that like they succesfull ?

This kind of questions can go either way.

No, I think the owners should have a right to run their business their way.

The whole idea of a CBA is stupid. I dont think there has ever been a lock out in my country because sports outside the US generally dont have CBAs, the employers set the rules, if the employees dont like them, they can move elsewhere. Thats a free market.

The NHL should be able to impliment whatever rules it wants, if the players dont like it, they should be free to leave for the Swedish or Russian league and earn 1/10th of their NHL salary there.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

No, I think the owners should have a right to run their business their way.

The whole idea of a CBA is stupid. I dont think there has ever been a lock out in my country because sports outside the US generally dont have CBAs, the employers set the rules, if the employees dont like them, they can move elsewhere. Thats a free market.

The NHL should be able to impliment whatever rules it wants, if the players dont like it, they should be free to leave for the Swedish or Russian league and earn 1/10th of their NHL salary there.

fine, but as long as the NHL insists on an entry draft, QO's, RFA and other restriction of movement by the players, they will have to negotiate for those rights.

dr

 

[CGG]

A side note: the Calgary Flames alone will make way more money this year then they did before last seasons cup run by not playing at all.I suspect most of the small market teams are in the same boat.

Care to back that up? This season, the Flames revenue will be about $0. There losses will be their fixed costs, which average $25 million or so per team. So no, they won't be making way more. Lose less? Debatable. But when you factor in they could have played with a cap in place AND a rollback on all salaries, you would have a hard time saying they are better off financially by not playing this year.

 

[kdb209]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bicycle Repairman
The NLRB rules both parties operate under the terms of the expired CBA.

Hey, you asked.

I might be wrong, but I don't think the NLRB has the authority to do that. They're going to tell the owners how to run their businesses and force them into a CBA, under a pro-business Republican government to boot? I don't think so.

All they can do is send them back to square one. No impasse = back to the negotiating table + severe penalities. That is, only if the owners are found guilty of having negotiated in bad faith.

I beleive the owners have the hammer in this.

Actually the NLRB does have the authority to do this. That is exactly what they did to MLB. That's the danger of declaring an impasse - if the NLRB does rule that no impasse exists and the league negotiated in bad faith, they can force the league to pay damages and force them to play under the old CBA untill a new CBA in negotiated, and now the PA would have all the leverage in those negotiations.

 

[Insanity]

Actually the NLRB does have the authority to do this. That is exactly what they did to MLB. That's the danger of declaring an impasse - if the NLRB does rule that no impasse exists and the league negotiated in bad faith, they can force the league to pay damages and force them to play under the old CBA untill a new CBA in negotiated, and now the PA would have all the leverage in those negotiations.

Do you think that the NLRB will do that knowing full well the majority of teams are loosing money? I'd imagine it more of going the $42.5M w/ 24% rollback. (serious question -- not attacking).

Can the NLRB actually come up with a CBA based on all previous offers?

 

[kdb209]

Do you think that the NLRB will do that knowing full well the majority of teams are loosing money? I'd imagine it more of going the $42.5M w/ 24% rollback. (serious question -- not attacking).

Can the NLRB actually come up with a CBA based on all previous offers?

The NLRB is not a mediation/arbitration service. All they can do is rule on the unfair labor practice complaint that will be brought by the PA if an impasse is declared. All they can do is look at the dispute and rule if a real impasse existed and if both sides bargained in good faith. If they find no, they can award damages and force the league to continue to operate under the previous CBA until a new one is negotiated.

The fact that the league is losing money is a good argument in favor of the league's stance in arguing for a cap and refusing to move off the $42.5M number in trying to establish the impasse though.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

The fact that the league is losing money is a good argument in favor of the league's stance in arguing for a cap and refusing to move off the $42.5M number in trying to establish the impasse though.

would the NHL not then be forced to open the real books for their hockey operations and related companies ?

another reason why i dont think the NHL will for impasse.

dr

 

[me2]

Care to back that up? This season, the Flames revenue will be about $0. There losses will be their fixed costs, which average $25 million or so per team. So no, they won't be making way more. Lose less? Debatable. But when you factor in they could have played with a cap in place AND a rollback on all salaries, you would have a hard time saying they are better off financially by not playing this year.

They won't have the same costs do nothing that they do by playing. No accomodation, no travel, no training, no misc payroll taxes or bonuses, less office staff, less arena costs. They will have more concert renevue if they control the arena.

 

[txomisc]

Why is it a forgone conclusion around here by most that the NLRB will automatically side with the owners and give their blessing to the impasse and implementation? Becuase there's a 3-2 split favoring republicans? If each and every case that went before the NLRB was voted 3-2 in favor of business, why have an NLRB? Why not just force all unions across the land to accept whatever business tries to force down their throats? Republicans don't have to automatically vote in favour of business. I for one would like to think they would actually listen to the case and vote on its merits.

And for everyone claiming the players won't get a better deal than the one they could have negotiated last week, you're right. But same goes for the owners. How are they better off because of this? Sure, they might end up with a lower cap, but with drastically lower revenues, even with linkage, they are going to be far worse off as well. Why is no one lambasting the owners for not negotiating the best deal they could get last week?

If the cap is lower and its linked, the owners will not be worse off.

 

[Exisled]

i have for all this time been very much against the owners tactics and frankly still feel this would have been resolved if the owners had used a softer hand.

HOWEVER, what exactly do the players think they have to hold onto here ? they are a collective group of fools for not taking their stay of execution (on saturday) and making it work.

the NHL called their bluff and now everyone (staff, players, owners, fans, associated business) is losing out.

talk about stubborn. talk about being a victim of your own success. they are so rich (players) that they arent hungry enough to suck it up and "settle" for some less "fair". can you imagine the word "fair" being used so many times as the lone reason why they cant agree to share 42.5m X 30 between their brothers.

i still hold the owners accountable for getting the league into this mess, but my opinion on the players has changed big time in the last few weeks.

dont count me on the players side anymore. they had the chance to bail the NHL out and said screw you. i say screw them.

dr

Wow. Back at HF at last. It's been a long, LONG time.

DR....I can understand your frustration. We're all frustrated, regardless of which "side" we're on in this labor dispute.

The answer to your question as to "what the Players think they have to hold onto here", is fairly simple.

You see it every time they take the ice.

And when you DON'T, when they show you, (the fan), anything LESS, you are understandably angry with them. Every fan of EVERY team has had those moments.

You know those games, don't you? Those games where it's EVIDENT that they're going to lose, no question about it? Those games where they're either out-classed, over-matched, or simply don't have "it" on that particular night?

How would YOU, as a FAN, feel if YOUR team went into the lockerroom after the end of the second period, down 5-2, and did one of the following:

1 - Came out for the start of the third period and completely ROLLED OVER, allowing the opposition to run roughshod over them, run up the score until it's an absolute ROUT, without so much as putting up a fight.

or

2 - Send their Captain out to the face off circle at Center Ice to begin the third period NOT to take the face off, but to advise the on ice Official that his team was "conceding".

"No way we can win this one. They're bigger, stronger, faster, Hell.....just plain BETTER, than we are. They win. No argument from us. It's inevitable. We forfeit. Bring out the Zamboni, and let's all get out of here early tonight, eh?"

As a FAN, you would be LIVID. And you'd have EVERY right to be.

Fact of the matter is, no matter HOW out-classed or over-matched they appear to be on the ice, there are EXPECTATIONS.

One of those expectations being that, Hell, they may not win EVERY game, but they'd better not ROLL OVER for the opponent. If they're gonna lose, fine. But at LEAST put up a fight! Show some Pride, for God's sake!

As fans, we EXPECT that. Most teams, most PLAYERS, no matter how "lowly" they are, no matter how much BETTER the opponent is, deliver on that expectation.

Pride? Yep. Stubbornness? You betcha. The inherent inability in these men, these PARTICULAR athletes, to "accept the inevitable", to "give up the fight", to do anything OTHER than skate hard and strive, because "It AIN'T over until the final buzzer sounds"? You'd better believe it.

We EXPECT this from them, and for the MOST part, THEY DELIVER, EVERY GAME, through an 82 game regular season....and if they're both lucky, AND "good enough", through the meat-grinder that is the Stanley Cup Play Offs.

Did you expect anything LESS of them when it's not a "game" that's at stake? When the "prize" is not a shiny silver Cup, but their careers? The manner in which they, (and their families), will live.....today.....tomorrow.....long after they've hung up their skates and "the Game" has forgotten them?

If you did, then explain WHY you did. And ask yourself another question:

WHY do you love the game?

Is it the speed and the skill ALONE? Or is it more?

Could it be the PASSION of the game? The HEART of the game? The "sew me back together, Coach. The third period's starting." attitude of the game?

If it is....

Then don't be "angry" with these guys for displaying the VERY SAME TRAITS which make THIS the best game on the planet, makes THESE guys the gutsiest athletes in ANY sport, and makes us LOVE them ON THE ICE.

To do so is hypocritical.

 

[Johnnybegood13]

They won't have the same costs do nothing that they do by playing. No accomodation, no travel, no training, no misc payroll taxes or bonuses, less office staff, less arena costs. They will have more concert renevue if they control the arena.

The Flames also own the Hitman which is the biggest draw in the WHL (possibly the CHL) and are loading the Dome for Roughneck games....i heard rumblings of a 12m profit this year (no Bob you can't count it) as opposed to a 3.7m loss in 02/03.

 

[me2]

THESE guys the gutsiest athletes in ANY sport

Bollocks.

 

[thinkwild]

I think its underestimated how great a point that is Exisled.

fine, but as long as the NHL insists on an entry draft, QO's, RFA and other restriction of movement by the players, they will have to negotiate for those rights.

dr

Negotiate those Rights. Are they forced to concede Rights in implementation? Do they necessarily have to decertify to appeal to the courts to maintain those rights?

If there is a cap, there's no reason for the owners to not have a complete ufa market. No draft. No RFA. No QO's. If there is a cap, would the players and owners both be better off with complete ufa status?

 

[Icey]

I think its underestimated how great a point that is Exisled.




Negotiate those Rights. Are they forced to concede Rights in implementation? Do they necessarily have to decertify to appeal to the courts to maintain those rights?

If there is a cap, there's no reason for the owners to not have a complete ufa market. No draft. No RFA. No QO's. If there is a cap, would the players and owners both be better off with complete ufa status?

The owners don't want a complete UFA status. They would prefer for them to stay RFA as long as possible. They want to be able to retain the rights their RFA as long as possible.

Problem is just like the players they want to have their cake and eat it to, but it won't work that way.

 

[thinkwild]

Well, when it comes to UFA age, what is cake? I know the conventional wisdom is that owners want it higher and players lower, however, actual negotiations to date seem to disprove that thought.

And what is the cake the players want? Their rights to free agency?

 

[Exisled]

I think its underestimated how great a point that is Exisled.

You know what I find funny, thinkwild?

I find it funny the number of people, ("fans", apparently), who honestly EXPECT the Players to "fold", simply because it appears to be "inevitable". And to do it "for the good of the game".

That's "funny" to me.

How 'bout this:


Dear Mr. Karmanos:

You, sir, should face the inevitable.

You are not Mike Ilitch. You will never BE Mike Ilitch.

You purchased a team which failed in it's first home. It is currently failing in it's second home.

Your team is NOT the Detroit Red Wings. They do not have the Revenue Streams to come CLOSE to the Detroit Red Wings. They do not have the FAN BASE of the Detroit Red Wings. They do not have 10 Stanley Cups to their credit, nor a long, STORIED History, and the distinction of being an Original 6 Team.

The Detroit Red Wings are bigger, stronger, more powerful, more profitable than your Team can ever HOPE to be.

You cannot compete. You are out-classed, sir. You have "lost" the battle.

Accept the inevitable. Do the honorable thing and allow your Team to fold, so that the League will no longer have to count YOUR losses against THEIR Revenues, or WORSE, be forced to drag the entire League down to YOUR level in an attempt to allow you to eke out a few more years of barely hanging on by a thread, only to have the "inevitable" finally happen anyway.

Do it "for the good of the game", Pete.

Sincerely,


Fans of the NHL



Now....

That "letter" could be sent to a NUMBER of Teams. And you could substitute a NUMBER of Teams for both the 'Canes AND the Wings in the situations brought up in that "letter". MOST here know which Teams they are. The League ITSELF knows which Teams they are.

But....

Because the OWNERS have a substantial MONETARY investment in NHL Hockey, a lot of "fans" would find that "letter" offensive and combative.

Not so, when directed towards the PLAYERS. Why? Because THEY have not "invested millions" in the League, in "hockey".

All THEY have invested is their lives. Most of them to the exclusion of everything else.