Lockout Looming (MOD: CBA negotiations status thread) - Part II

[bluesfan94]

Refuse to be penned in by the NHL's draconian concept of how to deal with their "partners"?

See that's the fallacy of the NHLPA argument. The players aren't partners. They aren't financially invested any more than they don't get paid if the business fails. They didn't put up money to help buy/start the business. They don't help pay for costs. They aren't true partners.

 

[Ari91]

I do believe that the Players have been offering since the beginning to freeze their cap increase until it catches up to a certain percentage for the owners. Owners want a rollback now and are refusing to consider that.

No that's not what they've been offering. They've been offering fixed salary increases. So they keep their 64+ million dollar caps and next year, they get an automatic raise that is independent of the actual revenues earned. To be clear, their offer has the potential to be VERY good for the owners. But it also has the potential be bad...how bad? I don't know. In the wake of owners demanding cost certainty, the players proposal is demanding that the owners to gamble their money, hope for the best, all the while the players still fill their pockets with more and more money (but the concession is that it's not AS much money as they would make at 57% - hypothetically speaking of course).

 

[Honeycutt]

Whens the last time a player ended the season in the red? Becasue last year 18 teams ended in the red.

 

[Holden Caulfield]

No that's not what they've been offering. They've been offering fixed salary increases. So they keep their 64+ million dollar caps and next year, they get an automatic raise that is independent of the actual revenues earned.

And they are using ridiculously optimistic numbers to do it as well.

Owners need to get on board to staying at 1.87 billion, but players need to get away from the idea that they will get any more raises for a while.

 

[Fugu]

Because unlike any other business, where a company can cut jobs, the NHL can't. Most companies, if they are losing money (semantically the NHL isn't, but in practice, 18/30 are, and just because the big earners are making more than all the losers doesn't help the owners of those 18 franchises. Yes, revenue sharing would help address this, but that's all a concession from the owners, and why should the wealthy teams' owners agree to that?) will try to lower costs. That is often done via employment. Even if the NHL weren't to do that, and were to look for other ways to lower costs, such as travel, etc, what would they do? Fly coach? Stay at cheap motels? I doubt the players would want that, too. I don't know how else the owners could lower costs without looking at the players. I have yet to find a reasonable way to do that.

As Fehr has pointed out, the players are not the only employees of the teams, although I'd grant that they are the single biggest group. That of course makes sense because the teams don't make any products, the players ARE the products in addition to being the employees.

I'm also tired of people throwing out that 18 teams are losing money bit.

That is an estimate from Forbes based on their own guesswork.

You will not find one source beyond that which illustrates which teams are losing money and how much. A few have 'leaked' alleged losses right ahead of the CBA talks. Riiiight.

A bit OT, but a lot of this has to do with the rising cost of fuel, specifically jet fuel, because that has created increased prices around the board. That hurts the owners, and the players don't have to deal with any of that. Basically, the players assume none of the financial risk in running a team; they don't pay for travel, hotels, food (i.e. team dinners, pregame spreads, etc), equipment, arena costs, staff, marketing, etc, and yet expect to reap over half of the reward. How is that fair?

Yet the player share remained constant. The avg growth has been greater than 7% for ten years.


The players never wanted to frame their share in terms of percentage of revenues. That is the league's demand. Let's keep that straight please. It's the NHL strong arm tactics that has forced everyone to speak in terms of what the players "deserve"-- not the players.

 

[Fugu]

Whens the last time a player ended the season in the red? Becasue last year 18 teams ended in the red.

No, they did not.

 

[Brian28]

Refuse to be penned in by the NHL's draconian concept of how to deal with their "partners"?

But yet Fehr comes back with his own Draconian CBA. Is that how he should be dealing with his "partners"?

It takes 2 to tango and Fehr is waltzing every bit as much as Gary.

 

[RedWingsNow*]

Move from Draconian to very unreasonable? Okay, we grew revenues but we want 24%. No? Well, how about 17% then.

Tell me why the players should take any cut. The NHL has failed to make that case beyond saying the NFL and NBA did it.

I also just posted in this in another thread, but NHLPA share is 51% of total NHL revenues. It's only 57% if we look at hockey-related revenues, per the CBA definition of such. So league revenues are in fact $3.46 billion if the HRR figure is $3.1 billion.

Exactly.
Since when is the NFL and NBA the basis for anything.

The basis for the future is the present. That is the starting point. The owners proposal is a damned joke, based on the current NHL situation. It's an insult to anyone who wants to see NHL hockey next year.

The players, using the framework the owners won in the last lockout, are willing to reduce their share of the pie to 52 percent.

If the owners use that model, they can easily negotiate the players down to 50 percent, which is what everyone seems to agree is the number.

Does it happen overnight? No. But it shouldn't. The NHL isn't in such bad shape that we need across the board reductions. The NHLPA is willing to give the owners the correction they want - gradually, i think.

It's incumbent on the owners to begin treating the PA like partners in this league or the atmosphere in the NHL will get very ugly.

 

[RedWingsNow*]

But yet Fehr comes back with his own Draconian CBA. Is that how he should be dealing with his "partners"?

It takes 2 to tango and Fehr is waltzing every bit as much as Gary.

That's simply not true.
There is nothing "Draconian" about the players reducing the HRR from 57 to 52

 

[Fugu]

See that's the fallacy of the NHLPA argument. The players aren't partners. They aren't financially invested any more than they don't get paid if the business fails. They didn't put up money to help buy/start the business. They don't help pay for costs. They aren't true partners.

Bettman is the guy who started this BS, so have a word with him.

There is no fallacy. The players are perfectly happy to let teams negotiate contracts with them independent of any mandated amount that must be spent.

 

[Holden Caulfield]

Bettman is the guy who started this BS, so have a word with him.

There is no fallacy. The players are perfectly happy to let teams negotiate contracts with them independent of any mandated amount that must be spent.

Are they? Why do they have a union then?

 

[Brian28]

No, they did not.

And yet the only figures anyone gets to see are those 18 teams. Given the finances the NHLPA received IF there was no truth behind this then why no rebuttal on this fact? They're looking for leverage...well debunking them publicly about falsified financials would do that.

 

[Honeycutt]

No, they did not.

Source?

 

[Brian28]

That's simply not true.
There is nothing "Draconian" about the players reducing the HRR from 57 to 52

Minus the fact their offer came with built in payraises at a time the league needs stability and cutbacks? What about the players request to have say in non player expenses...how many employees get to tell their boss "no, you can't spend that money there"?

 

[Heaton]

No chance.

The players have already indicated a willingness to go where the owners want.

The question will be, how fast.

It's just going to take some skilled negotiating to come to a deal.

No chance of what? The utopia Fehr wants isn't going to be created in 6 months.

 

[KINGS17]

Are they? Why do they have a union then?

Well, let's be fair. In the world of professional sports one of the primary reasons to have CBAs is to protect the owners from themselves. Without a CBA to put limits on stupid owners and GMs the player salaries would be driven to unsustainable levels and you get what you had prior to the last lockout.

 

[ZadorovNJD*]

This old argument again. So the best table tennis players should be paid millions as well? Or the best coal miners?

If the best table tennis players can draw enough attention to be a multi-billion industry you bet your ass they would deserve millions. This idea that players don't deserve to get paid millions just because they "play a game" when "playing a game" generates billions of dollars a year in revenue is ridiculous. I do think the players are wrong to hold out for a better deal that probably won't come, but they aren't greedy to want their fair share when they are the main attraction.

 

[Ari91]

Can you ask the same question of the owners, who not only want to hold on to the money they have right now, but want 24% more.

The owners have made it clear that the want to reduce costs and want to see some tangible benefits of those reductions preferably sooner rather than later. Does that proposal bode with the desires of the owners? No, it doesn't. So why would I expect the owners to offer that deal? Or readily accept it for that matter?

The players say their proposal is avoiding pay cuts and phasing out their HRR share. Doesn't that proposal address both of those things? So would it not make more sense that the players offer that proposal and be happy with that?

I don't know if the owners would go for it but the players could offer a long term contract so that the owners have time to see a phase implemented and have time to actually recoup those expenses. The players don't have to give anything back and the owners can hopefully buy into a cost certainty situation that will start paying dividends in a few years.

 

[Fugu]

Source?

Source for what? Forbes' chart that says 18 teams lost money based on their guesses at actual revenues and costs?

Sorry--- you guys need to find some team financial reports that show who lost money, not just throw this dribble out there as fact.

 

[Fugu]

And yet the only figures anyone gets to see are those 18 teams. Given the finances the NHLPA received IF there was no truth behind this then why no rebuttal on this fact? They're looking for leverage...well debunking them publicly about falsified financials would do that.

Please show me a link other than Forbes for the teams that lost money and how much.

 

[Chili]

As Fehr has pointed out, the players are not the only employees of the teams, although I'd grant that they are the single biggest group. That of course makes sense because the teams don't make any products, the players ARE the products in addition to being the employees. .

I'd be very interested to see the average cost of a team's 'other employees':

coaches
management
scouts
minors employees
doctors
trainers
security
marketing
vendors/attendants
etc.

Would really be interesting to see the complete payroll of an average team.

Not to mention the costs of operating a team beyond payroll.

 

[Grudy0]

No, they did not.

Source?

That's what many of us are asking. The only source is Forbes.

People are complaining about the players delinking because no one knows the estimated growth over the term of a new CBA. Yet those same people are quick to point out that 18 teams are losing money based off of Forbes' estimates, which even one owner (whose team is credited as a rather severe money loser) claimed was a pile of [expletive deleted].

 

[Apoplectic Habs Fan]

I'd be very interested to see the average cost of a team's 'other employees':

coaches
management
scouts
minors employees
doctors
trainers
security
marketing
vendors/attendants
etc.

Would really be interesting to see the complete payroll of an average team.

Not to mention the costs of operating a team beyond payroll.

I think Doug Maclean i believe it was, said when he was in Columbus, it was something like 20 million dollars a year to operate the team excluding players expenses. Its safe to say with inflation, that number has risen

 

[Honeycutt]

Source for what? Forbes' chart that says 18 teams lost money based on their guesses at actual revenues and costs?

Sorry--- you guys need to find some team financial reports that show who lost money, not just throw this dribble out there as fact.

You should also find some team financial reports, becasue you are making a claim you cannot back up.

 

[meedle]

I think Doug Maclean i believe it was, said when he was in Columbus, it was something like 20 million dollars a year to operate the team excluding players expenses. Its safe to say with inflation, that number has risen

thats right. look at columbus. How is their scouting? How is their player development? When is the last time they made the playoffs? So would you say they need to spend more than they are?