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

[rdawg1234]

AGREED. The numbers thrown around do not take into account real numbers. The

fact that because of revenue growth that the players may not actually lose a

single cent IMO is very widely overlooked.

which is why it annoys the **** out of me that the players wont even budge on a single firm percentage when we're about to hit a lockout.

also as someone posted above, they'd make more money taking a lower deal now than a higher deal after a year long or half-season lockout.

 

[stug*]

I hope they ****ing choke on all there own money.
The greedy always wants more.

 

[ElginStreetParty07]

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's assume (CBA rules aside) AHL players were called up to play for NHL teams and NHL players were demoted to play for AHL teams. Would the consumer demand for the two leagues change? If yes, doesn't that support the premise that the players are the product and not the game itself?

Of course it would. The debate that I would throw back to that is ; how much of

an effect would it have on demand? I would suggest that it would be much less

than proponents of the NHLPA might have you believe.

 

[meedle]

+ revenue growth though next year no? so technically it's not a 9% decrease.

strictly speaking on that revenue wise if revenue grows by say 6%, dropping to 52% would end up giving them 1.818 billion rather than 1.881(Which unless I calculated wrong is only a 3.5% decrease revenue wise).. A measely 60 million for one year. Is it that big of a deal that they cant afford that kind of loss. Make it 54% then a gradual drop to 52 and they'd lose even less if any at all.

I don't know for sure, but it sounds to me from listening to various players, its not about the money. Its about last time and what they gave back, and this time if they cave, what about next time. So really they are fighting on principles. And their current offer supports that, wanting guaranteed 1.87 billion plus raises. And not a penny less.

So until they break, we will be here awhile.

To me, like most logical people, they should just take the deal, you will lose less income this way personally. To the average person, flushing hundreds for thousands to millions down the toilet doesn't make sense.

 

[Crease]

Of course it would. The debate that I would throw back to that is ; how much of

an effect would it have on demand? I would suggest that it would be much less

than proponents of the NHLPA might have you believe.

Fans of the game in Chicago and Toronto have equal access to both NHL and AHL products. Why can one version charge consumers a substantial amount more the other version? It's certainly not because the NHL arena is nicer.

 

[JAX]

I don't know for sure, but it sounds to me from listening to various players, its not about the money. Its about last time and what they gave back, and this time if they cave, what about next time. So really they are fighting on principles. And their current offer supports that, wanting guaranteed 1.87 billion plus raises. And not a penny less.

So until they break, we will be here awhile.

To me, like most logical people, they should just take the deal, you will lose less income this way personally. To the average person, flushing hundreds for thousands to millions down the toilet doesn't make sense.

Yea they gave back last time but they quickly recovered the losses in the next few years. I just wish they would negotiate instead of playing chicken.

 

[rdawg1234]

I don't know for sure, but it sounds to me from listening to various players, its not about the money. Its about last time and what they gave back, and this time if they cave, what about next time. So really they are fighting on principles. And their current offer supports that, wanting guaranteed 1.87 billion plus raises. And not a penny less.

I think it's this too. It's all pride and Don Fehr pushing them to not take a cut and they all think because half of them werent in the last lockout that they can pull out of this with a huge moral victory, "we won over the owners!" meanwhile they end up losing more money in the long run, the fans lose(well potentially) a whole season but all so that they could get that extra 100k on their paycheques.

I just want this over with.

 

[Jussha]

I created this spreadsheet in less than half a hour so the math may be wrong but I don't think it is.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsOGYYuC55tidE1jXzFCWTkwSzdKOTJEM085MUptdHc#gid=0

The spreadsheet assumes the following fact that the NHLPA will not get their guaranteed lump sum of $12,543.70 billion that they want but that they will receive their 57%-54.3%-52.7%-52.2%-52.3%-52.4% of HRR that their offer is based upon the 7.1% growth.

Column's A-F show 5 different tables.

Table 1 - is the NHLPA proposal that shows their HRR percentage based on 7.1% growth.
Table 2 - is the NHL offer that shows HRR percentage based on 7.1% growth.
Table 3 (scenario 1) - is the NHLPA HRR % allocation but based on different growth % and takes into account that only a partial season will be played
Table 4 (scenario 2) - is the NHL HRR % offer based on assumptions made in table 3.
Table 5 (scenario 3) - is a 50/50 split established eventually with the assumptions made in table 3.

I made it so that you can manipulate the growth and how long the locked out season would be to generate the NHLPA's share of revenue.

As scenario 2 is the NHL's HRR % I did not include the numbers as I don't think its that important to look at.

What I did was compare Scenario 1 running about 10 different scenario's which assume the NHLPA's HRR allocation and it shows that any duration of a locked out season and different growth factors will lead the NHLPA to receive less money than they would if they accept scenario 3 (50/50 split of HRR with no lockout).

Any comments and maybe my math is wrong? But it seems pretty clear right now that a 50/50 HRR split eventually is the much better solution for the NHLPA than a lockout and losing any amount of games. I will change my opinion on this if I miscalculated anything but it shows in the numbers to me at the moment.

If you have any questions about reading the spreadsheet just let me know and I will try and answer it.

 

[rdawg1234]

Yea they gave back last time but they quickly recovered the losses in the next few years. I just wish they would negotiate instead of playing chicken.

And I'm sure they know that even at 50% they'll be making far more than 1.88 billion within a few years. This whole thing is silly.

 

[Bjindaho]

I don't know for sure, but it sounds to me from listening to various players, its not about the money. Its about last time and what they gave back, and this time if they cave, what about next time. So really they are fighting on principles. And their current offer supports that, wanting guaranteed 1.87 billion plus raises. And not a penny less.

So until they break, we will be here awhile.

To me, like most logical people, they should just take the deal, you will lose less income this way personally. To the average person, flushing hundreds for thousands to millions down the toilet doesn't make sense.

It's quite clear that most of the NHLPA doesn't understand the current CBA. The parts they dislike are the parts that Fehr is using to prevent negotiations. The owners WON'T cave because it could cripple their league to (and they could re-make lost profits). The players will not re-make lost pay

 

[JAX]

which is why it annoys the **** out of me that the players wont even budge on a single firm percentage when we're about to hit a lockout.

also as someone posted above, they'd make more money taking a lower deal now than a higher deal after a year long or half-season lockout.

It appears solidarity means more then money and hockey......and the fans of course.

 

[Crows*]

Agreed about it just being personal for the players. Fehr has them in a frenzy to get revenge on Bettman. It's clouding their judgement.

 

[ElginStreetParty07]

Fans of the game in Chicago and Toronto have equal access to both NHL and AHL products. Why can one version charge consumers a substantial amount more the other version? It's certainly not because the NHL arena is nicer. It's the players. Consumers pay for the quality of the game and the only thing driving the quality is the players themselves.

Says who ? The arenas have better equipment , they are better advertised than

their cheaper counterparts. My point is , the NHL is the best hockey league in the

world for more reasons than the quality of the players. Since the players are only

part of the production as a whole ( much like movie actors ) they cannot be
defined as " the product".

 

[meedle]

Yea they gave back last time but they quickly recovered the losses in the next few years. I just wish they would negotiate instead of playing chicken.

Thats perception, you don't recover that money that is lost. It is gone forever, your bank account will never see it.

 

[BerSTUzzi]

Sooooooooo you want to keep the 6 struggling franchises by pissing off the current fan base and hoping more fans will want to come post lockout? I just don't understand what the Owners want(I know it's money) they asked for this system, it's not the players fault that GM's give out ridiculous contracts. I'd say keep the current system and only limit the length (6 years max)

 

[rdawg1234]

I created this spreadsheet in less than half a hour so the math may be wrong but I don't think it is.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsOGYYuC55tidE1jXzFCWTkwSzdKOTJEM085MUptdHc#gid=0

The spreadsheet assumes the following fact that the NHLPA will not get their guaranteed lump sum of $12,543.70 billion that they want but that they will receive their 57%-54.3%-52.7%-52.2%-52.3%-52.4% of HRR that their offer is based upon the 7.1% growth.

Nice numbers but in fairness to the players, I think they could pull out with 51-52% instead of 50% if they negotiated right now.

Either way Scenario 3 would make both parties happy both would make more money(potentially) by not having a lockout and taking the 50%. I mean it is a billion dollars difference in some scenarios but we're talking 11.5 billion versus 12.5 billion, how much do the players need?

 

[Choralone]

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's assume (CBA rules aside) AHL players were called up to play for NHL teams and NHL players were demoted to play for AHL teams. Would the consumer demand for the two leagues change? If yes, doesn't that support the premise that the players are the product and not the game itself?

No. Demand would change because the NHL product (the game) was being produced by inferior players, resulting in an inferior product.

In arts and entertainment, you don't buy or rent the performer like some kind of slave - you enjoy their product - whether it's a game of hockey, a concert, or a broadway play. A performance is a service; it's intangible and ephemeral, but it's a product nonetheless.

Furthermore, there's more to a hockey game than the players. The arena, seating, soundsystem, video screens, food, and the quality of service in all those areas also enhance or degrade the perceived quality of the event.

 

[meedle]

Sooooooooo you want to keep the 6 struggling franchises by pissing off the current fan base and hoping more fans will want to come post lockout? I just don't understand what the Owners want(I know it's money) they asked for this system, it's not the players fault that GM's give out ridiculous contracts. I'd say keep the current system and only limit the length (6 years max)

Its not about the contracts, if they signed 10 players for 1 billion, it wouldn't matter, as a whole they only pay out 1.87 billion. not a penny more. so the players give back the difference. The opposite is true, if they only have 1.5 billion in salaries. They still have to pay the players the remainder 387 million. So whether its a contract or not. the owners still have to give it up.

 

[JAX]

Sooooooooo you want to keep the 6 struggling franchises by pissing off the current fan base and hoping more fans will want to come post lockout? I just don't understand what the Owners want(I know it's money) they asked for this system, it's not the players fault that GM's give out ridiculous contracts. I'd say keep the current system and only limit the length (6 years max)

So in other words basically do nothing? Unfortunatly it's a little more complicated then that.

 

[JAX]

Thats perception, you don't recover that money that is lost. It is gone forever, your bank account will never see it.

Thanks, but I was talking about the 24% they gave back which most guys got back to that % if not more.

 

[meedle]

Thanks, but I was talking about the 24% they gave back which most guys got back to that % if not more.

Thats true, but they did lose a whole year of salary and could have avoided the lockout that year.

 

[Ollie Weeks]

Idea.

We need all the puck bunnies need to strike, effective immediately. No money, no adoring women, boy howdy will they be eager to get back on the ice and play "for love of the game."

 

[rdawg1234]

Thanks, but I was talking about the 24% they gave back which most guys got back to that % if not more.

I dont have the hard numbers, but yes them saying we gave back a tonne and were so hurt blah blah isnt the full truth.
without looking at the numbers in the long run they probably broke even or gained a bit of money after the cut.

This is purely on pride right now. Every cut in %(whether its down to 49 or 53%) will leave them with with more than 1.88 billion within a few years. the higher the % the less time it will take to get above 1.88.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

That's my biggest problem with this whole situation, the whole plan from the get go is to play tough and "hold out" instead of actually negotiating ideas and numbers....they just try to wait the other side out and hope they cave.

History has shown that Fehr is not a reasonable man.

 

[Jussha]

Nice numbers but in fairness to the players, I think they could pull out with 51-52% instead of 50% if they negotiated right now.

Either way Scenario 3 would make both parties happy both would make more money(potentially) by not having a lockout and taking the 50%. I mean it is a billion dollars difference in some scenarios but we're talking 11.5 billion versus 12.5 billion, how much do the players need?

Yeah any duration of a lockout that is greater than 20% of the season will most likely result in the NHLPA receiving less money long term using their HRR split than they would if they went 50/50 or 52 PA / 48 Owners.

Fehr wants guaranteed money which I think is laughable and a non starting point in any CBA negotiations with the owners and that's why the players will end up losing in the long run.

All the players have to do is switch from a guaranteed money stance to a % of HRR stance and I think the lockout would end immediately because the NHL offer of 57-47-48-49% offer has wiggle room and could get to the mentioned 57%-54%-53%-52% split or whatever.