Ideal CBA

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by f1nn, May 8, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. f1nn

    f1nn Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    2,890
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Location:
    Espoo, Finland
    Post here what you think would be a fair CBA that would fix atleast some of the NHL's problems and still keeps players atleast moderately happy
     
  2. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    75,550
    Likes Received:
    961
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    I think the biggest mistake that the NHL is making is that they want too much all at once .. We have all heard the Baby steps theory before .. I support Domi gouging theory to a point .. That the owners are letting the last CBA cloud its judgment in this one as they want to recover from all mistakes over night .. This takes time and patience and needs to be done in steps. .

    The NHL should have taken a deal that had a the 24% rollback and a hard cap with as you say luxury tax (which generates forced Revenue Sharing) .. Penalties start and $40 Mil and increase in levels up to the Max of 50 mil Hard Cap ..

    This allows the market Salaries and players to adjust better going into a future system then trying to take players used to making $6-8 mil and suddenly like a huge shock make them accept $3-4 mil for the Stars to fit under a cap or your career is over.

    With the appropriate drag on salaries with the systemic issues addressed of the CBA you are educating the young Stars of tomorrow Nash, Crosby, Heatley, etc that the days of $8 million dollar Salaries are a thing of the past .. We all know you can't miss what you never had, but the opposite forcing today's Stars to take 50% pay cuts or else is a tough transition for anyone ..

    Also a Hard Cap floor is just as important IMO .. You have to force owners to spend their money to a minimum level .. That figure should be around $30 mil when the league has recovered. .This Washington selling off all its stars is an embarrassment to the league and so are 18 and 20 mil payroll teams.. There will be lots of UFA out there each year and with the big market teams Capped out lots of choices for other teams with room to add vets to make the team competitive for fans even while the rebuild with youth that takes place.

    This next CBA will truly give these recent expansion teams to test their true success and financial viability in the NHL .. If after the 5 years teams are still losing money at the 30 mil range then you have to pull the plug on the experiment once and for all...

    Linkage should be the goal of the next CBA .. It has trust issues and those can be addressed over the life of this CBA .. Put things in place to capture the data and test the accuracy of it, even involve a 3rd party to build trust and the partnership of tomorrow. .. Then if the Owners can prove that the reporting and numbers are accurate you have overcome a big hurdle, and simply turn on the switch in the next CBA that links the HARD CAP ceiling to a percentage of tested and proven revenue in the future when the Game is at its top in growth and recovery.

    It also allows a smooth transition into linkage as hopefully with no lockout and 5 or 6 years on this CBA to restore the 2.1 bil industry then you have actual figures to make the Cap numbers not pure guesses ..
     
  3. vadardog

    vadardog Registered User

    Joined:
    May 29, 2004
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Linkage 45% minimum and 55% maximum. Most other details don't matter as long as you can't spend more than 55% of league wide revenues. Although I'd like to keep the rookie max quite high so that Russia doesn't start taking players like Malkin, Ovechkin, or even Crosby away.

    With linkage, players get more money if hockey is popular (so its better than a cap), owners don't go broke if hockey becomes less popular than lawn bowling (so its better than a cap). If a team can't survive at 45% of league wide revenues then the owners either have to revenue share, move the team or fold it.

    If the league got this deal then most teams would try to maximize revenue by spending on such things as advertising which would increase league revenue which would increase player salaries. Plus they would work on helping each other raise revenues for all with things like better TV deals. Instead we have had a league that canabilizes itself by spending more on salaries so they have a chance to win to increase revenues. But when one team wins more that means another has to lose more so their revenues go down. Now you have a non-competitive league which is boring to watch.
     
  4. Weary

    Weary Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So the desire is too make hockey profitable for owners who run their business poorly. Why should hockey owners enjoy such an exemption from the market realities that other businesses must operate under?
     
  5. vadardog

    vadardog Registered User

    Joined:
    May 29, 2004
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because it will ruin hockey if rich teams buy all the players, where have you been for the last 10 years. In reality this is the owners fault. Their egos are getting in the way of good buisiness decisions. If they were smart they would amalgamate all 30 teams and then apply a 25 million dollar salary cap to each branch (team) of their company. Thats not collusion. With a 25 million cap for each team at least 90% of the best players in the world would still play in the NHL because the market reality is that nobody else offers salaries that good.
     
  6. garry1221

    garry1221 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Walled Lake, Mi
    Home Page:
    good conecept, but wrong %age, all teams at 25 mil would equal out to a average salary of 1.25 mil. while i know this wouldn't be what each and every player gets, it's still lower than what teams in russia right now could offer. let's say team a has one allstar... say iginla, would he settle for 1.25 here when he could go oversea and make 2 or more mil? even if team a paid it's 4th line and 3rd pair dmen 750 k, it could only bump iginla's salary up to 3.75 mil. and that's saying that at best he's got average players around him... it wouldn't work, there's no way 90% of the best players would play here when their wages have already been set like that.
     

  7. Agreed.
    I've been shocked by the owners negotiating strategy.
    Seems to me like they had the players beat. They could have made significant gains and still had hockey this season, therebye minimizing the damage done to the sport.
    They had the sun, but they wanted the moon and the stars, too.

    Instead, they gambled that they'd break the union and that the players would fold their hand.

    Are they insane? Have they not learned anything about the sport they are involved in?

    You can say the players are making a stupid financial decision by refusing to take whatever scraps the owners are throwing their way. We can argue that all night.

    But why on earth would they want to get in a battle of wills with hockey players? These guys are they best in the world at a game that is entirely about passion, will, pride and all-around hard-headedness.

    And they thought they players would just cave in? Based on what?

    If they did, then they've made a collosal blunder.

    If they didn't, then the owners are guilty of planning a lockout that could easily wipe out two seasons and cause catastropic damage to the game.

    And that's could even be dumber.
     
  8. me2

    me2 Calling out the crap

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    33,384
    Likes Received:
    1,343
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Blasting the bull***
    Add to that the loss of a 1st round pick at $40m, a 2nd at $44 and a 3rd at $48. And you've got a workable deal.
     
  9. PecaFan

    PecaFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,939
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Location:
    Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
    Home Page:
    Frankly, I could care less. I *want* players out of the league who care more about money than hoisting the Cup.

    I know for a fact that some players already feel this way. You can tell by their reactions to missing the playoffs, etc. They don't really care they missed, because it's unpaid time in their minds.

    This would make a lovely litmus test.
     
  10. Spoken like a guy who's never worked for a living.

    People go to work. They get paid.
    That's how it works in real life.

    I like the Yzermans of the world. The guys who play for pride.
    But these guys also deserve their money.

    Maybe I've been blessed. But I've watched just about every Detroit game for the last decade, and I can't think of any guys who were "in it just for the money."

    And given the way Illitch liberally spends his dough, you'd think we'd have seen more than our fair share.

    You anti-player people need to get your heads on straight. A vast majority of the NHLers are good, hard working players.
    But that isn't good enough, I guess.


    ADDED:

    For what it's worth, I also find it hilarious that people want NHLers to forgo money and play for the love of the cup.

    Many of these same people attack the owners who pay extra (ie, forgo money) and play for the cup.
     
  11. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    And the vast majority were honest hard working players when they only made 100,000 a year. The players who play for pride would continue to do so, even if their wages are cut by 90%.

    Why should we care if the players portfolio's have to take a hit to make the league viable in more markets?
     
  12. allin4466

    allin4466 Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,077
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    heres a wacky idea i kind of hashed/stole from that "offer" that was made to buy all the leagues teams.

    Why not eliminate/buy out franchises where they are in markets where they shouldnt be, and then consolidate the remaining 24 teams or whatever they would be, into one entity. IE have a company where you have technically one sole owner, but the revenues are still divided into a fair proportion amongst the 24 "owners".

    This way, you create a market place in which you can dictate which player goes to which team, where you can then make all teams competitive, and create an environment in which fans will want to come to games to see their team play.

    Pay the players a flat salary like the the WWF's football league did, and pay them extra for wins, goals, points, performance etc.

    This makes sure players show up to play, would probably increase scoring, as well as spread the talent out amongst the league.

    This idea would NEVER EVER happen and is in no way feasible, but imagine the sucess a league could have.
     
  13. markov`

    markov` Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,647
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Top 2 in the world
    Home Page:
    My ideal CBA would include players, fans, referees and a rink, and, of course, hockey games.
     
  14. CantHaveTkachev

    CantHaveTkachev call on me

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Messages:
    26,352
    Likes Received:
    1,805
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    St. OILbert
    spoken like a true professional sports player.

    I highly doubt they "deserve" their million dollar paycheques for playing a game while doctors save lives and get paid significantly less...

    I remeber Greztky saying "everything I got in my life is from playing hockey". Maybe these players should wake up realize that they owe the game more than the game owes them.
     

  15. How many big pay days did Gretzky turn down??

    I am not responsible for capitalism's inequities.
    I don't believe athletes, movie stars and rock stars provide a more important service than doctors.
    But capitalism isn't about ethics or human value.
    It's about money.
    Thank goodness the medical profession hasn't completely abandoned ethics, despite the influx of capitalism.

    How much would a doctor's service be worth to you if you were very ill and there were no other doctors around?
     
  16. shveik

    shveik Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,852
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Inspired dilettante
    Home Page:
    1. If you take 500 top doctors in the world, what would be their average annual you think? Also, you have to remember that a doctor will "see" several thousand people in a year, and a top hockey player entertains hundreds of millions over the same time period. Larger market :D

    2. As soon as you start talking about people about "deserving" their money, it is communism, not capitalism.

    3. I do not understand that "for the love of the game" bit. Are you allowed to want more money only if you hate your job?
     
  17. PecaFan

    PecaFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,939
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Location:
    Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
    Home Page:
    Spoken like someone who values money over everything else.

    In my lifetime, I've turned down numerous jobs that paid better than I was currently making. Sometimes, it was out of sense of loyalty to my current employer. He took a risk hiring me when I didn't have much experience to my name, that deserved to be rewarded. Sometimes it was for family, I'd rather make less and stay closer to my family than be stuck thousands of miles away. And before I retired, I valued my freedom so that I could travel with my wife, so I ran my own businesses, again making less than I could have had I worked for someone else.

    Not that you'll understand any of this. You'll just say "You FOOL! You could have made more $15K more working somewhere else!" :shakehead
     
  18. DuklaNation

    DuklaNation Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    2,847
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Ever hear of tariffs? Quotas? Price ceilings? Fixed exchange rates? Interest rate changes Etc. etc. These are market realities for businesses. Yet they are included in various forms within the CBA negotiation.

    Just to educate, when demand exceeds supply, price inflation occurs. In order to slow market conditions, cost constraints must be in put in place.

    Tell Alan Greenspan, he doesnt need to change interest rates ever. The market will just fix it. (re: see 30's depression)

    I still believe a $40M soft cap, with a hard cap at $55-60M can work (stiff luxury tax in between). However, everyone involved has to improve the quality of the game. From the rhetoric I hear, I have no hope that the current powers have the impetus to do this.
     
  19. Hunter74

    Hunter74 Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,032
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    96
    I agree and disagree.

    I disagree with this b/c I dont see why there should be any kind of sympathy for the players. This part is strictly business and the players comfort level imo doesn't carry much. Though i do understand that it will be harder to make someone give up 50% rather than 25% of there earnings. It would really suck though to have to go through a lockout every time the CBA was up until things were evened out.

    Do it like a bandaid. One quick pull and its over.


     
  20. Weary

    Weary Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks for the offer to educate, but your statement is off base. The whole idea behind supply-demand theory is that they reach equalibrium at some point. There is no requirement for cost constraints. They do not slow market conditions, they fully stop them by enacting artificial prices.

    Markets are normally self-correcting. The market for NHL players is no exception. The problem is, some owners do not want to do business in the same market as other owners. And that's the heart of the NHL's economic woes.
     
  21. DuklaNation

    DuklaNation Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    2,847
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Thats true. But you may have to endure several business closures to get to the equilibrium. Say, let 8 teams go bankrupt and close up shop. That isnt an option for this league. Let alone the turmoil and bad league PR. Some industries go through 20 years of reching their equilibirum. But that would be a self-correcting market as you put it.

    Basic eco 101 is for the lemonade stands.

    Therefore constraints are needed.
     
  22. Volcanologist

    Volcanologist Used Register

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Messages:
    23,225
    Likes Received:
    838
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Toronto
    Who cares about your piddly regular-guy income?

    $15k may not be worth it, but what about a hundred times that amount? Now what do you say? It's all relative.

    You can't compare yourself with an NHL player. They live in an economic world that you don't understand, can't understand. A loaf of bread, a car and a house cost you the same as it does him, but he has far greater economic freedom.

    Maybe you turned down a (relatively) small amount of money, because to you it wasn't worth doing x, y, or z. So what? It's a different stratosphere entirely with these guys. I bet your attitude would change in a flash if you were making $4 million and now they want you to take 2 million. A big hurry.

    People who make these idealistic statements about money have never had any of it to speak of, I find.
     
  23. You don't know jack about me.
    I've made several of the same decisions my life.
    My monetary needs are modest. In fact, I think the money in pro-sports is completely obscene.
    But I can't change that. So I'm asking myself who is right. Or less wrong.
    Well, let's see.
    The owners aren't going to voluntarily cap ticket prices, revenues or profits, are they?
    So why should the players accept a cap on salaries.

    This is my beef.
    If the owners were willing to make four promises, I'd join their side:
    1. We will cap ticket prices for the duration of the contract.
    2. We will cap profits. Excess profits will go into a fund run by the NHL and the PA and will be used market the game of hockey or build the sport in Canada and the US.
    3. As well as a salary cap, there will also be significant revenue sharing.
    4. We will attempt to bring hockey back to Winnipeg and we will explore hockey in Quebec City.

    If the NHL was concerned with "saving the game", they're list of demands would include these kinds of items.

    But they;re not concerned with saving the game. Not at all. I've watched these bumbling jack****** almost ruin the game over the last decade. From its finances, to the ridiculous franchise locations, to the on-ice product.
    Say what you want about the greedy players. The owners are just as greedy, and they are the ones who've steered this league into a ditch.

    Yet, they don't feel like any of the onus is on them when it comes to fixing this thing.
     
  24. jamiebez

    jamiebez Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,772
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Location:
    Ottawa
    :handclap: :handclap: :handclap:

    Great post!
     
  25. WC Handy*

    WC Handy* Guest

    Not only would the players not want anything to do with this, just like the owners, but it's unneccessary. Attendance across the league shows that, for the most part, tickets aren't overpriced. Maybe the NHL could use something like the NBA where a certain number of tickets must be available at every arena for a certain price, but you can't put a cap on them. If you put a cap on prices all that would do is increase the prices of the cheaper tickets.

    Okay... we can do that just as soon as they all recoup what they've lost over the last decade. So what do we cap the profits at? I'd suggest something along the lines of $20M. Certainly an owner deserves as much as what a couple players make. Too bad not a dime would ever make it into this fund...especially with your cap on ticket prices.

    The owners have said over and over again that there will be revenue sharing.

    Why would the owners want to move teams or expand to markets that they'd have to support once the revenue sharing you proposed is in place?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"