Jacques Rogge slams NHL players

[Jobu]

The PA hasn't offered any concessions so that the season could be played... they offered some concessions in a bargaining agreement for a new CBA, which signed by both sides would allow hockey to begin again. There is no "interm" CBA so there could be hockey, and the Owners have no interest in once again getting hosed for another year by the last CBA

Why not rest that big brain of yours, and just focus on the discussion instead of telling everyone how dumb they are.

Of course the players have offered concessions, and provided a basis for serious negotiations off of those concessions, so that the season could be played. However, the owners have refused to recognize that - as is their prerogative. You're quite right, the league could go on without a CBA, but again, the owners have decided against that - as is their prerogative.

What, IMO, is unfair and arguably NOT the owners' prerogative (whether morally or legally in the context of bad faith) is to fail to recognize that players either formally or anecdotally have offered up a framework markedly different from that which governs the game today. In particular, an unprecedented wage rollback, changes to salary arbitration, luxury taxes, profit sharing, bonus deflators, etc. Is it that unreasonable to try a system based on these ideas, if only temporarily?

Instead, the owners are focused on one position, and are expecting the players to make sweeping changes that are almost entirely in favour of them.

 

[Jobu]

Never said anything about efficient. Do you know what economy means??? Shows me what you know. In an efficient market, at least 5 teams would go bankrupt within 2 years. Follow the steel industry?? Know the aftermath of the revisions of the Telco Act in 1996? Look it up.

Players want the US to compete against China in manufacturing shoes and t-shirts.

"Price ceilngs are required to maintain competitive environment in many industries." Please find me 3 respected economists who have argued this.

 

[jcab2000]

"Price ceilngs are required to maintain competitive environment in many industries." Please find me 3 respected economists who have argued this.

Well, one McDonalds can't be built next to another McDonalds and charge 5 cents for Big Macs until the other is out of business. It's franchise rules.

 

[Leaf Army]

that said, why should an owner who is wealthy lose millions of dollars (or anything for that matter), simply to support overpaid players?

Well first of all it's very unclear how much the owners actually are losing, but that's already been talked to death.

But I find it hard to believe that so many owners would invest in the NHL if they didn't think it would be beneficial to them. They didn't become billionaires by making poor investments. They know what they're doing.

Everyone always talks about how much the owners lose per year. No one talks about the value of the franchise- that's where they make their money.

For example if I buy a house, it's going to cost me a fair amount of money on year-to-year basis to maintain that house. From that standpoint, the house will be costing me money.

But if I go and sell that house 15 or 20 years later, guess what. The value of the house has increased substantially.

Posters call the Owners dumb for over paying the players, and say they should learn how to fix things. Well, here they are fixing it, and all you hear is the players complaining.

Well they want the players to take the full hit for fixing it.

I can tell you one way that the owners could easily fix all problems immediately. They could pool all revenues and split them evenly. All teams would have the same spending power and salaries would not spin out of control. But the owners would never do that.

All, that being said, I think the last proposal we heard from the owners was fairly decent.

 

[DuklaNation]

"Price ceilngs are required to maintain competitive environment in many industries." Please find me 3 respected economists who have argued this.

Ever heard of tariffs? Players complain that everyone else is in a free market system when they're not. You're argument flies in the face of reality. Price adjustments are needed in order to maintain the competitiveness of an industry.

Steel industry in the US was protected by tariffs for many years and still is to this day in order to allow for its slow death due to massive cheap foreign product.

 

[Ar-too]

What, IMO, is unfair and arguably NOT the owners' prerogative (whether morally or legally in the context of bad faith) is to fail to recognize that players either formally or anecdotally have offered up a framework markedly different from that which governs the game today. In particular, an unprecedented wage rollback, changes to salary arbitration, luxury taxes, profit sharing, bonus deflators, etc. Is it that unreasonable to try a system based on these ideas, if only temporarily?

Given the current financial state of the league, yes.

Hockey players get paid more or less the same as the athletes in the other major sports. There aren't any 15, 20, or 25 million dollar players in hockey, but there aren't too many in the other sports either. The revenue streams for hockey are the same as the other sports leagues. What's the big difference? TV money. The NHL receives a fraction of what the other major sports do in TV money. That's why owners are losing large amounts of money. Hockey will never make the TV money the other sports do. Radical change, including a salary cap, is what most (not all) reasonable people believe will cure this.

The players made a good first step, but I, as do many other people, believe we'd be in the same predicament once the players' proposed CBA was up. For the NHL, that wasn't a risk worth taking. I don't think that amounts to bad faith.

 

[quat]

Of course the players have offered concessions, and provided a basis for serious negotiations off of those concessions, so that the season could be played. However, the owners have refused to recognize that - as is their prerogative. You're quite right, the league could go on without a CBA, but again, the owners have decided against that - as is their prerogative.

What, IMO, is unfair and arguably NOT the owners' prerogative (whether morally or legally in the context of bad faith) is to fail to recognize that players either formally or anecdotally have offered up a framework markedly different from that which governs the game today. In particular, an unprecedented wage rollback, changes to salary arbitration, luxury taxes, profit sharing, bonus deflators, etc. Is it that unreasonable to try a system based on these ideas, if only temporarily?

Instead, the owners are focused on one position, and are expecting the players to make sweeping changes that are almost entirely in favour of them.

Well, since the Owners only have one chance to get things right, it's really incumbent upon them to do so this time. If they accept something that doen'st work, they are stuck because there is absolutely no way there can be a work stoppage again.

The PA is a tough "union" to bargain against, and that calls for strong bargaining tactics. 10 years ago, the season was almost lost, but the owners caved in the end and, well here we are now.

Since the NHL has said they are open to negotiating anything but linkage, other than the 24% rollback, nothing else is all that suprising. The PA is willing to do give up quite a bit to keep a system they are familiar with, and one they know they can milk for increasingly higher salaries. The Owners want nothing to do with it.

As you say, it is there perogative.

 

[DuklaNation]

Given the current financial state of the league, yes.

Hockey players get paid more or less the same as the athletes in the other major sports. There aren't any 15, 20, or 25 million dollar players in hockey, but there aren't too many in the other sports either. The revenue streams for hockey are the same as the other sports leagues. What's the big difference? TV money. The NHL receives a fraction of what the other major sports do in TV money. That's why owners are losing large amounts of money. Hockey will never make the TV money the other sports do. Radical change, including a salary cap, is what most (not all) reasonable people believe will cure this.

The players made a good first step, but I, as do many other people, believe we'd be in the same predicament once the players' proposed CBA was up. For the NHL, that wasn't a risk worth taking. I don't think that amounts to bad faith.

This is the whole point of the 30 team league. To get that nationwide TV deal. That's where the pot of gold is for the NHL. Profit margin on that deal would be huge. In order to get that, teams are spread out in areas not normally associated with hockey.

 

[Poignant Discussion*]

Most hockey fans are as ignorant as Rogge, hence the pupular support for the owners. The informed among us are far more able to see the owners' lockout for what it is and that it's not at all about the players "refusing to play for $6m."

Rogge is pathetic.

 

[Luc Labelle]

You can be replaced by anyone walking down the street, the NHL player can't.

Icey, a single mother friend of mine who is living on welfare and has been looking for work the last 2 years will be shocked to hear she wasted her time getting a proper education and networking in the business world. All this time she should have just been walking down the street.

Don't diminish the value of the talent and intelligence of people making $40,000 or even $2,000 a year. I guess companies should not have human resources departments that scout for the talent they are willing to pay $40,000 to get. According to you, anyone making this amount of money has no discernible amount of knowledge or talent since they can be replaced by anyone who is capable of walking down a street. Brilliant!

 

[mr gib]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=113450



Perhaps he should know his facts?


I think the NHLPA might not be so keen into giving the Olympics their support anymore.

it was a joke - later on went on to say he loves the nhl and needs the player's in the olympics -

 

[quat]

Well first of all it's very unclear how much the owners actually are losing, but that's already been talked to death.

But I find it hard to believe that so many owners would invest in the NHL if they didn't think it would be beneficial to them. They didn't become billionaires by making poor investments. They know what they're doing.

Everyone always talks about how much the owners lose per year. No one talks about the value of the franchise- that's where they make their money.

For example if I buy a house, it's going to cost me a fair amount of money on year-to-year basis to maintain that house. From that standpoint, the house will be costing me money.

But if I go and sell that house 15 or 20 years later, guess what. The value of the house has increased substantially.




.

If you buy a house for 250 large, and some friendly renters down the street turn out to be crack addicts, who've decided to run their "business" from home, I think you'll see the value of your house actually decrease. This seems to me what the league is facing these days.

Plus, I still don't have any trouble with an owner who invests a hundred plus million into a hockey team actually realizing money from it... just as I have no problem with players making extremely good wages playing the game.

Well they want the players to take the full hit for fixing it.

Well, since salaries are the issue, I don't really see how else you lower salaries othere than lowering salaries.

I agree that revenue sharing would be good for the league, but that doesn't make players salaries any lower. I feel that Players getting 54% of revenue is equitable. When the league is healthier, then players can have a higher percent.

 

[HF2002]

As much as you can argue the economics of the sport, and state who's right and who's wrong, and attempt to predict the future, my view of this is that the owners are sticking it to the players because they can. Let's face it, the players did so throughout the life of the previous CBA.

Players held out because they could, players refused to sign a deal as the union wanted them to hold out for more money because they could. Players brought every little grievance forward because they could, a few players sat out even though they had a deal and held the team hostage for more money or a trade because they could, and players showed little to no loyalty to the team they played for because they could. The League asked the players to negotiate for the last two years and they refused. Because they could.

What amazed me is how there were next to no complaints raised about Kariya and Selanne signing with Colorado for the amounts they did because they could. IMO, this was a pretty low blow to the fans of the clubs they were on the year before.

How can any team compete when star players demand boat loads of money, get this money even though it means there's less to spend on other players to stregthen the roster, only to have these guys jump ship for considerably less than they made with their original team just because they wanted a better shot at winning the Cup? All because they could. Did the union complain to them then? No way. So a high rolling team can spend, spend spend, to the point that only a few teams genuinely have a shot at winning, only to be able to turn around and lure some of the top players to their team for well below market value. Could any middle tier team or smaller market team ever have a hope in doing this? No.

So now, the owners are sticking it to the players because they can. The players milked the teams and the owners in such a way over the last ten years that it's easy enough for the owners to turn to the players and say "what goes around comes around". I'm not sure it's so much about dollars and cents anymore.

It has been brought up many times that, for most of these owners, their teams are more like a hobby to them. If that's the case, should the players expect anything less in the owners response during this lockout?

And I'm ok with it.

 

[Jobu]

Jobu, a single mother friend of mine who is living on welfare and has been looking for work the last 2 years will be shocked to hear she wasted her time getting a proper education and networking in the business world. All this time she should have just been walking down the street.

Don't diminish the value of the talent and intelligence of people making $40,000 or even $2,000 a year. I guess companies should not have human resources departments that scout for the talent they are willing to pay $40,000 to get. According to you, anyone making this amount of money has no discernible amount of knowledge or talent since they can be replaced by anyone who is capable of walking down a street. Brilliant!

With all due respect, and even though I didn't make the original comment, and even though I don't see how this has much relevance, the fact that your single mother friend is on welfare is evidence of the fact that she doesn't possess a very scarce or valuable skill-set and is widely replaceable.

 

[CarlRacki]

You are worse than the common fan if you think this lockout if over $$$. The $$$ are the last issue in this lockout.

So when you were given the opportunity to choose a career, why did you choose a career that only pays you $40,000 when you could have choosen to be a NHL hockey player making $1.8M? Could be because you don't have the talent?

That is the big difference between you and the average NHL player. You can be replaced by anyone walking down the street, the NHL player can't. And if you resent their income so much when the games resume, stop attending games, stop paying their salaries, stop buying merchandise otherwise just stop complaining.

Not about money? Now that's funny.
What, pray tell, is it about then? Family leave? Health benefits? Too many games on the weekend?
Are you this naive about everything, or just hockey?

It's about money for both sides and anyone who can't see that is a fool.

 

[CarlRacki]

Most hockey fans are as ignorant as Rogge, hence the pupular support for the owners. The informed among us are far more able to see the owners' lockout for what it is and that it's not at all about the players "refusing to play for $6m."

Rogge is pathetic.

Ever notice how people who brag about their wisdom are usually the biggest bunch of dumba--es you'd ever want to meet?

Food for thought.

Anyhow, assailing the intelligence of those with whom you disagree is a weak and cowardly argument.

 

[CRAZY_FAN]

Ever notice how people who brag about their wisdom are usually the biggest bunch of dumba--es you'd ever want to meet?

Food for thought.

Anyhow, assailing the intelligence of those with whom you disagree is a weak and cowardly argument.

And it's much easier while sitting in front of your PC....

 

[Jobu]

And it's much easier while sitting in front of your PC....

Fact one: Rogge is ignorant.

Fact two: Most hockey fans are as ignorant as Rogge.

Fact three: CarlRacki = "most hockey fans."

Fact four: Anyone as ignorant as Rogge and most hockey fans add little value to "The Businses of Hockey Discussions."

 

[Luc Labelle]

With all due respect, and even though I didn't make the original comment

Apologies to Jobu, I have edited my original post to reflect I was commenting on a post from Icey.

the fact that your single mother friend is on welfare is evidence of the fact that she doesn't possess a very scarce or valuable skill-set and is widely replaceable.

You are confirming the validity of my argument. She has not been able to get a job just by walking down the street as stated by Icey. Icey was trying to insult anyone not making millions of dollars per year as not having a valuable skill set.

 

[AM]

YOure a big fan of a free market?

I think we have a new funniest post winner.

Oh really, an economist will tell me that artificial controls on price are the way to make markets efficient? Funny, I always thought there was this thing about "free markets" that permeated the science of economics.

What a joke. Adam Smith is rolling in his grave.

What is the current average payroll these "NHL players" can command?

I'd guess in the 100000 range.

Thats all they deserve in the NHL also.

 

[Wetcoaster]

It's really neither a strike nor a lockout. Since the old CBA expired, there's no agreement in place to govern the terms and conditions of employment.

Wrong.

 

[Other Dave]

What is the current average payroll these "NHL players" can command?

I'd guess in the 100000 range.

Thats all they deserve in the NHL also.

Why $100,000? Why not $95,000 or $120,000?

Is it just because "$100,000" represents "a lot of money" to you?

 

[CRAZY_FAN]

Fact one: Rogge is ignorant.

Fact two: Most hockey fans are as ignorant as Rogge.

Fact three: CarlRacki = "most hockey fans."

Fact four: Anyone as ignorant as Rogge and most hockey fans add little value to "The Businses of Hockey Discussions."

Fact one : You dont have to be an a** about you knowing everything and everyone else being complete ignorant...

Fact two : Just because this his a message board does not mean you have to insult everyone...

Fact three : This is a discussion board, everyone is entitle to his opinion...

 

[Sinurgy]

Fact one: Rogge is ignorant.

Fact two: Most hockey fans are as ignorant as Rogge.

Fact three: CarlRacki = "most hockey fans."

Fact four: Anyone as ignorant as Rogge and most hockey fans add little value to "The Businses of Hockey Discussions."

All you do is insult people and make sweeping statements about everyone elses "ignorance" and your true understanding. The only conclusion is that you are insecure and desperately seeking attention. So go ahead and bask in your sunlight little man but realize that it is only you casting those rays.

 

[Epsilon]

I got a kick out of Ted Saskin's comment about Rogge: "I cannot understand why Mr. Rogge would comment on the current owners' lockout when he clearly has no information about any of the issues surrounding it."

I'm sure if hypothetically speaking, let's say ... oh, I don't know ... Forbes magazine were to publish a report, based somewhat on hard numbers and somewhat on conjecture, that showed the league's finances to not be in as dire a position as the Levitt report, which was based on data compiled from teams' UROs, made them out to be, Ted Saskin and the PA would tell Forbes to butt out of the matter too and wouldn't use the magazine's findings in the PR wars against the league. Again, this is just hypothetical. I know Saskin or anyone else in the PA wouldn't be that much of a hypocrite.

Except for the fact that Forbes magazine is a respected authority in the world of economics and finance. Rogge is a doctor by trade, who happened to reach a top position in an archaic sports body that has no link to the NHL labour dispute, and has no experiences that make them qualified to comment on it. The IOC does not negociate CBAs and so your attempted shot at Saskin doesn't hold water.