Lockout II - Moderated: Talk about your plenty, Talk about your ills...

[Tawnos]

Sure, maybe. All this eye of the beholder winning and losing stuff is great for whoever needs to tell their people they won at the end of the day. I count dollars, and players lost on dollars already.

Obviously, there are more important things involved here. Otherwise we wouldn't be where we are. So just counting dollars is using blinders.

It's not about simply telling your people that you won, it's about what your goal is in a negotiation. One goal of the PA is known, and that's to protect the integrity of the deals that they signed and that the principle of those deals are more important than the dollar value. The players don't want to be or have been mislead in contract negotiations. Progress has been made in that regard, but they're not on the same page yet.

I believe the other is to shift the balance back towards player leverage. Not to shift it to the player's having greater leverage, but to shift it away from the owners having all of it like they did when they ran over the union in 2005. Whether they're successful or not won't be known until the next negotiation.

 

[DyerMaker66*]

really?

This is a hard concept to grasp I guess.

Kind of since contraction hasn't happened in this league since 1942, and I don't really see what the year 1942 has to do with this discussion, but please enlighten me.

 

[Hanklite*]

Kind of since contraction hasn't happened in this league since 1942, and I don't really see what the year 1942 has to do with this discussion, but please enlighten me.

Contraction = getting rid of teams.

NHL lockout = no teams playing

NHL lockout is on par with league wide contraction...

 

[haseoke39]

Obviously, there are more important things involved here. Otherwise we wouldn't be where we are. So just counting dollars is using blinders.

It's not about simply telling your people that you won, it's about what your goal is in a negotiation. One goal of the PA is known, and that's to protect the integrity of the deals that they signed and that the principle of those deals are more important than the dollar value. The players don't want to be or have been mislead in contract negotiations. Progress has been made in that regard, but they're not on the same page yet.

I believe the other is to shift the balance back towards player leverage. Not to shift it to the player's having greater leverage, but to shift it away from the owners having all of it like they did when they ran over the union in 2005. Whether they're successful or not won't be known until the next negotiation.

If the dollar value of the deal is the aspect that determines its "integrity," then I think we're still talking dollars. And when you talk about leverage, you're just talking about future dollars. I really see no reason to think that the owners are learning their lesson here. I think, on the contrary, the fact that the players are going to come out of this negotiation poorer for having fought so hard means that they're likely to lose some piss and vinegar next time. So everybody comes out of this lockout less excited about another one. But of the two parties, I think the players are the ones getting hurt more, and therefore the ones who lose more desire to fight next time. As leverage is a comparative thing, I think if you can even quantify such a thing, it's more suggestive that the owners are gaining leverage for next time.

EDIT: You suggested that players feel they were misled in their previous contract negotiations, and that therefore they're fighting for something like certainty in negotiations. But they're not going to get delinkage, so I don't see how they're going to get that certainty under any circumstances. As long as there's linkage, any future reductions asked for (if any) will present the same problem. I hear this "integrity" of the deal talk to be mostly talking points designed to sway fans and media over what's "fair," rather than focus on what can be negotiated to.

 

[Tawnos]

If the dollar value of the deal is the aspect that determines its "integrity," then I think we're still talking dollars. And when you talk about leverage, you're just talking about future dollars. I really see no reason to think that the owners are learning their lesson here. I think, on the contrary, the fact that the players are going to come out of this negotiation poorer for having fought so hard means that they're likely to lose some piss and vinegar next time. So everybody comes out of this lockout less excited about another one. But of the two parties, I think the players are the ones getting hurt more, and therefore the ones who lose more desire to fight next time. As leverage is a comparative thing, I think if you can even quantify such a thing, it's more suggestive that the owners are gaining leverage for next time.

Yeah, right. The owners, who thought they could come into this negotiation and walk right over the PA to get what they wanted, have gained standing for next time by having that NOT happen.

By the way, from what I've read, the players have come into this prepared to weather the lockout, much like the owners did last time. Much of the union's time in the earlier part of the year was spent helping the players get their financial houses in order to do so. In other words, they're prepared to "come out of this poorer". It's not about money.

And I mean misled by the fact that owners offered and signed players to deals never expecting to pay out on them fully. Dollars don't determine integrity. What the players are saying here is "don't mess with our heads on this stuff."

 

[Shrimper]

I'm guessing that today's mediation session is still on-going?

Started at 11:00EST I believe.

 

[haseoke39]

Yeah, right. The owners, who thought they could come into this negotiation and walk right over the PA to get what they wanted, have gained standing for next time by having that NOT happen.

By the way, from what I've read, the players have come into this prepared to weather the lockout, much like the owners did last time. Much of the union's time in the earlier part of the year was spent helping the players get their financial houses in order to do so. In other words, they're prepared to "come out of this poorer". It's not about money.

And I mean misled by the fact that owners offered and signed players to deals never expecting to pay out on them fully. Dollars don't determine integrity. What the players are saying here is "don't mess with our heads on this stuff."

Except the owners never messed with anyone's heads. Players pay six figures to agents to explain to them what it means for a contract to be subject to the CBA. They know that and see no other CBA in NA pro sports offering more than 50% to its players while half the NHL is walking at break even or in the red, they should know before a single offer is made what's going to happen. This really isn't the NHL being manipulative. There wasn't a backdoor secret mechanism sprung on anyone. The players act like it is because it makes for good press, but it's not.

And the NHL doesn't have to walk over its players to gain leverage. All they need are enough PA members to look at these negotiations in the rearview mirror and realize they would've been better off taking the deal that offered them a full season. Players aren't some mystical warriors fighting for fairness or the rights of man. They're fighting for their damned money. They're fighting so hard they're losing more than what they're fighting for. If that ever sinks in for these folks, they're going to have a serious doubt about whether to fight so hard the next time.

 

[Fugu]

Except the owners never messed with anyone's heads. Players pay six figures to agents to explain to them what it means for a contract to be subject to the CBA. They know that and see no other CBA in NA pro sports offering more than 50% to its players while half the NHL is walking at break even or in the red, they should know before a single offer is made what's going to happen. This really isn't the NHL being manipulative. There wasn't a backdoor secret mechanism sprung on anyone. The players act like it is because it makes for good press, but it's not.

And the NHL doesn't have to walk over its players to gain leverage. All they need are enough PA members to look at these negotiations in the rearview mirror and realize they would've been better off taking the deal that offered them a full season. Players aren't some mystical warriors fighting for fairness or the rights of man. They're fighting for their damned money. They're fighting so hard they're losing more than what they're fighting for. If that ever sinks in for these folks, they're going to have a serious doubt about whether to fight so hard the next time.

You don't know what anyone did or said, so stating as factual is... questionable. I'm not alleging anyone did anything inappropriate, but it is surprising that some players feel they asked owners questions about money and were told "everything was fine." Everyone knew the lockout was coming over a year ago, so it's a legitimate question to ask.

 

[DyerMaker66*]

Contraction = getting rid of teams.

NHL lockout = no teams playing

NHL lockout is on par with league wide contraction...

No, it's not in any way, shape, or form. The NHL has not intentionally reduced the size of their "company": There are still 30 members (29 at the moment) with 700-ish employees. Did the NHL contract the Atlanta Thrashers? Because they certainly got rid of the team. I enjoyed this business lesson though.

 

[Habtchum*]

If THREE teams are making 83% of all revenues, it's a clear sign that this league is sick and needs drastic business operational practices.

Too many teams. This league should not have more than 24 (at least 9 in Canada).

Get rid of the cap floor and keep the cap ceiling at 70 million for the next decade.

 

[haseoke39]

You don't know what anyone did or said, so stating as factual is... questionable. I'm not alleging anyone did anything inappropriate, but it is surprising that some players feel they asked owners questions about money and were told "everything was fine." Everyone knew the lockout was coming over a year ago, so it's a legitimate question to ask.

I'd love to see the quote where someone accuses an owner of making representations to players of how the CBA negotiations would go. And even if they did, it's hardly relevant - players would've signed the best deal they could get either way. I'm having trouble seeing why owners would even bother making such a far-fetched representation. And the agent who let their player swallow that theoretical pile of speculation should be fired.

 

[Tawnos]

Except the owners never messed with anyone's heads. Players pay six figures to agents to explain to them what it means for a contract to be subject to the CBA. They know that and see no other CBA in NA pro sports offering more than 50% to its players while half the NHL is walking at break even or in the red, they should know before a single offer is made what's going to happen. This really isn't the NHL being manipulative. There wasn't a backdoor secret mechanism sprung on anyone. The players act like it is because it makes for good press, but it's not.

And the NHL doesn't have to walk over its players to gain leverage. All they need are enough PA members to look at these negotiations in the rearview mirror and realize they would've been better off taking the deal that offered them a full season. Players aren't some mystical warriors fighting for fairness or the rights of man. They're fighting for their damned money. They're fighting so hard they're losing more than what they're fighting for. If that ever sinks in for these folks, they're going to have a serious doubt about whether to fight so hard the next time.

No other professional sport is having their players go from a 57% share to a 50% share immediately either. They are paying full value for the deals that they signed. So no, everything you just said really has no comparison to the situation the players found themselves in after signing their deals over the summer. It's not about an owner stating to a player how the CBA negotiations would go. It's about what the events that actually occurred were. And they were this: the owners signed players to big contracts and contract extensions and then asked them to give some of that money back immediately upon the opening of CBA negotiations. These are facts.

And the point of this particular negotiation is so they don't have to fight so hard next time. The league will always have more leverage than the players. That's a fact. But it's about whether or not the league continues to try to steamroll their way through these things or approaches these negotiations as negotiations in the future.

If the players were fighting over just money here, the stalemate would've been broken already.

 

[haseoke39]

If THREE teams are making 83% of all revenues, it's a clear sign that this league is sick and needs drastic business operational practices.

They don't. They make 83% of net profit.

Imagine a league where the bottom 29 teams are cumulatively at break even. Then the top team will make 100% of the league's net profit, even if it barely makes more than the second ranked team.

Forbes really should be chastised for putting out a stat that has this kind of power to confuse. You're not the first person to think this.

 

[Hanklite*]

No, it's not in any way, shape, or form. The NHL has not intentionally reduced the size of their "company": There are still 30 members (29 at the moment) with 700-ish employees. Did the NHL contract the Atlanta Thrashers? Because they certainly got rid of the team. I enjoyed this business lesson though.

wow, you can't think outside of the box can you...

Only literal definitions for you. Got it.

 

[haseoke39]

No other professional sport is having their players go from a 57% share to a 50% share immediately either. They are paying full value for the deals that they signed. So no, everything you just said really has no comparison to the situation the players found themselves in after signing their deals over the summer. It's not about an owner stating to a player how the CBA negotiations would go. It's about what the events that actually occurred were. And they were this: the owners signed players to big contracts and contract extensions and then asked them to give some of that money back.

And the point of this particular negotiation is so they don't have to fight so hard next time. The league will always have more leverage than the players. That's a fact. But it's about whether or not the league continues to try to steamroll their way through these things or approaches these negotiations as negotiations in the future.

If the players were fighting over just money here, the stalemate would've been broken already.

Did the NFL and the NBA accept delinkage in order to continue paying current deals? Not clear on my end. I thought they went straight to 47 and 50. Source would be appreciated.

 

[Freudian]

You don't know what anyone did or said, so stating as factual is... questionable. I'm not alleging anyone did anything inappropriate, but it is surprising that some players feel they asked owners questions about money and were told "everything was fine." Everyone knew the lockout was coming over a year ago, so it's a legitimate question to ask.

So players, who have had their salaries be affected by escrow for the last seven years, this summer got the idea that they were going to be paid the nominal values in their contracts?

This "look at all the contracts they signed this summer" discussion is nonsense. They sign a lot of contracts every summer. That's when contracts are signed. Many of the big name UFAs the last couple have negotiated big signing bonuses because they know there is a big chance of the players salary share going down. The players and their agents know very well that contracts are regulated by the CBA.

The only questionable contracts signed were the 6-7 year RFA contracts (Boston, Edmonton) signed this summer and it's hard to argue that any player got screwed on those.

As a sound byte "why did they sign those contracts when they have no intention of honoring them" might convince the more impressionable of us but anyone with a clue knows that "honoring" is and will be regulated by the CBA.

 

[MNNumbers]

They don't. They make 83% of net profit.

Imagine a league where the bottom 29 teams are cumulatively at break even. Then the top team will make 100% of the league's net profit, even if it barely makes more than the second ranked team.

Forbes really should be chastised for putting out a stat that has this kind of power to confuse. You're not the first person to think this.

I see your point, haseoke, but I would like to offer this as well:
It's also possible to have a league where the bottom 6 teams lose $60M (altogether), the middle 12 break even, the next 9 have $100 million in profits. So, that makes 27 teams, and $40 mil in profits (notice those 9 profitable teams average $11M), then the top 3 have $200 mil in profits. That means the top 3 average $67M in profits. Now, that is very unequitable. Not unfair, just not equal. It would suggest a problem that needs to be considered, anyway, wouldn't it? Especially if the same 6 teams are on the bottom, and the same 3 teams on the top every year.

 

[haseoke39]

I see your point, haseoke, but I would like to offer this as well:
It's also possible to have a league where the bottom 6 teams lose $60M (altogether), the middle 12 break even, the next 9 have $100 million in profits. So, that makes 27 teams, and $40 mil in profits (notice those 9 profitable teams average $11M), then the top 3 have $200 mil in profits. That means the top 3 average $67M in profits. Now, that is very unequitable. Not unfair, just not equal. It would suggest a problem that needs to be considered, anyway, wouldn't it? Especially if the same 6 teams are on the bottom, and the same 3 teams on the top every year.

For sure. Which just means we're both right, and you need more information than "83% of net profit" to judge which situation you're in.

 

[CerebralGenesis]

I'm guessing that today's mediation session is still on-going?

Started at 11:00EST I believe.

That's good news. I was wondering if they started yet.

 

[Tawnos]

Did the NFL and the NBA accept delinkage in order to continue paying current deals? Not clear on my end. I thought they went straight to 47 and 50. Source would be appreciated.

The NBA's cap froze or grew for two seasons. http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q13

The NFL has guaranteed that players will earn 99% of the Cap for two years until the floors are set at 89% of the Cap in 2013.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/30/per-team-spending-minimum-doesnt-apply-until-2013/

That 47% you talked about for the NFL is actually the minimum the players will earn, not the maximum that teams will pay.

 

[Shrimper]

If THREE teams are making 83% of all revenues, it's a clear sign that this league is sick and needs drastic business operational practices.

Too many teams. This league should not have more than 24 (at least 9 in Canada).

Get rid of the cap floor and keep the cap ceiling at 70 million for the next decade.

That'd never fly with the NHLPA. Losing 132 jobs isn't beneficial. 9 teams in Canada won't work as well - how are you going to make 9 in 24 when there's 7 in 30?

That's good news. I was wondering if they started yet.

Not entirely sure if they did but others where saying that.

 

[KINGS17]

Yeah, right. The owners, who thought they could come into this negotiation and walk right over the PA to get what they wanted, have gained standing for next time by having that NOT happen.

By the way, from what I've read, the players have come into this prepared to weather the lockout, much like the owners did last time. Much of the union's time in the earlier part of the year was spent helping the players get their financial houses in order to do so. In other words, they're prepared to "come out of this poorer". It's not about money.

And I mean misled by the fact that owners offered and signed players to deals never expecting to pay out on them fully. Dollars don't determine integrity. What the players are saying here is "don't mess with our heads on this stuff."

Some of the players are going to "weather it" right into retirement. This idea that some of them have that there is something to "win" is ridiculous. There only thing there "is", are economic realities.

Players that signed contracts prior to the lockout without understanding that they would be impacted by the new CBAs should be upset with their agents, not the owners.

 

[DyerMaker66*]

wow, you can't think outside of the box can you...

Only literal definitions for you. Got it.

Yeah, the law always thinks outside of the box and refers to certain actions as completely different ones! Is this a lock-out, a strike, or has the league simply contracted all 30 teams and ceases to exist? It doesn't matter: They're all the same in the eyes of the law (and in the eyes of some in the public, apparently).

 

[DyerMaker66*]

That'd never fly with the NHLPA. Losing 132 jobs isn't beneficial. 9 teams in Canada won't work as well - how are you going to make 9 in 24 when there's 7 in 30?

By adding Quebec and Hamilton (again, who the NHL has said would be top 5 in league revenue).

 

[Tawnos]

Some of the players are going to "weather it" right into retirement. This idea that some of them have that there is something to "win" is ridiculous. There only thing there "is", are economic realities.

Players that signed contracts prior to the lockout without understanding that they would be impacted by the new CBAs should be upset with their agents, not the owners.

Why should they have expected it to be impacted by the new CBA? In two lockouts last year, used so often as comparables, no one else's deals were affected detrimentally by their new CBA.