Lockout V: Take the Long Way Home

[Morgoth Bauglir]

NHL should entrust their franchises to AHL talent then

And the players can go play in the bush leagues ie the KHL. Enjoy those bus rides through Siberia boys

 

[19Yzerman19]

The players aren't losing anything except money they haven't earned yet.

The owners are watching money they already had and invested lose value.

That's all that needs to be said.

So what your really saying is the players aren't giving up anything at all in this fight, right?

 

[Lacaar]

The players aren't losing anything except money they haven't earned yet.

The owners are watching money they already had and invested lose value.

That's all that needs to be said.

you're saying players place no value in their signed guaranteed contracts?

on the belief that they haven't made that money yet?

am I the only one that thinks Bob is trying to tell me the players don't value guaranteed contracts?

 

[Gump Hasek]

The players aren't losing anything except money they haven't earned yet.

The owners are watching money they already had and invested lose value.

That's all that needs to be said.

Actually, you are quite incorrect as there are numerous contracts that expire at the end of this season. It is a quite sizable amount in fact. A large portion of those players, current NHLPA members, will never be seen in the NHL again. Those specific players lost the opportunity to earn those dollars and will never replace that lost opportunity. Players are indeed losing money as such, many of them in fact.

The owners conversely have the benefit of time to recoup lost income, yet many of the players do not have the benefit of time on their side.

Oops. It appears that the players should have signed long ago.

 

[Dado]

A large portion of those players, current NHLPA members, will never be seen in the NHL again.

The more relevant question is whether, over the life of whatever agreement is finally made, the gains (or lower losses) for current and future players will be greater than the losses of the small number of players whose NHL careers won't meaningfully resume after the league lifts the lockout.

In the last lockout, they were, by a huge margin. The PA benefitted tremendously from the lockout.

Oops. It appears that the players should have signed long ago.

Impossible to say, until we can look backwards from the next CBA negotiation.

 

[Gump Hasek]

The more relevant question is whether, over the life of whatever agreement is finally made, the gains (or lower losses) for current and future players will be greater than the losses of the small number of players whose NHL careers won't meaningfully resume after the league lifts the lockout.

In the last lockout, they were, by a huge margin. The PA benefitted tremendously from the lockout.

That is moot to the 3rd & 4th line guy presently on the bubble and to the guy on his retirement deal.

Current NHLPA members are losing money via lost opportunity, as stated.

Impossible to say, until we can look backwards from the next CBA negotiation.

Tell that to those that won't be back.

 

[Dado]

Tell that to those that won't be back.

Doesn't change the plain fact that for the vast majority of PA members, pushing to a lockout last time was a HUGE win.

Time will tell if history repeats, or merely rhymes.

 

[Gump Hasek]

Doesn't change the plain fact that for the vast majority of PA members, pushing to a lockout last time was a HUGE win.

Time will tell if history repeats, or merely rhymes.

I was just correcting the blanket statement made earlier in the thread that "players aren't losing anything except money they haven't earned yet". In fact, many are losing the opportunity to earn money, an opportunity that they will never recoup. I'm not addressing players that may theoretically be union members in the future but rather am discussing the here and now. Hope that helps.

There is most likely a huge personnel turnover coming next season, it will be gigantic in scope.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

Honestly, its because I think few of them actually take the time to look at the proposals to see what they are really made of, they just want to get the bullet points, write an article on why Bettman/Fehr are so bad (and lets face it, 50% of these reporters have an agenda to start with, so its not like they are doing objective reporting anyways). The math is not hard, but they do not want to do the work it seems. Reporters eyes glaze over when Fehr or Bettman starts talking terms they do not understand, and instead of admitting their ignorance and asking, they just keep nodding their head.

McKenzie is the only reporter I have seen so far who analyzed the players proposal to the point he realized its not 50/50.

I personally do not think the reporters are skipping it to keep interviews. I fully expect 95% of the NHLPA do not even understand what they are offering is not 50/50. I'd be surprised if more than 5% of then even gave their own unions proposals more than a 1 minute bullet point glance (although arguably thats all Bettman/Daly seem to need to shoot it down). Some may appreciate the honesty more than people give them credit for. I'd bet 75% of the players think they are at 50/50 and the owners just do not want to play is the only explanation. I think if they realized just how far apart the proposals are, the pressure on the union by rank and file membership would be significantly higher to move their proposal forward, work off the owners proposal.

Awesome post.

 

[Cawz]

The players aren't losing anything except money they haven't earned yet.

The owners are watching money they already had and invested lose value.

That's all that needs to be said.

Substitute "PA" for "players" and you are correct.

Some players are losing money, but the PA will always make its money because the owners want to pay them. Its just unfortunate that some of the players will be sacrificed for this crusade of greed.

 

[Cawz]

Thing about that is, the deal the players wound up getting in July was much better than what they were being offered in February (a flat $42 million cap with no linkage), long-term anyway. They took a hit in the short term with the $39 million cap that went up to $70 million and HRR going back up to 57%.

Thats not exactly true though, because no-one knows how the original offer would have ended up long term. CBAs never unfold the way they are expected to over multiple years. All that we know is numerous players who went through the last lockout said it wasnt worth it.

People keep harping on the money the players are losing 'now' but on some level you have to respect that it's not the big concern for them.

They are holding the fans hostage over greed and ego. Thats not really worthy of respect.

 

[Gump Hasek]

Substitute "PA" for "players" and you are correct.

Some players are losing money, but the PA will always make its money because the owners want to pay them. Its just unfortunate that some of the players will be sacrificed for this crusade of greed.

Substitute "some" players with "many"; the pending player turnover will also occur while entering into a new CBA that most likely will pay the players a smaller percentage of overall HRR going forward.

 

[Ducks DVM]

The players aren't losing anything except money they haven't earned yet.

The owners are watching money they already had and invested lose value.

That's all that needs to be said.

Considering they have guaranteed contracts, they had absolutely earned it. They've colluded with the owners to make sure they'll never see a dime of it. The owners can have their investments appreciate again in the future, and haven't lost actual money on said value unless they fail to wait long enough to sell them (any current losses may even financially help offset profits in their REAL businesses), the lost salary of the players will never return.

That's all that needs to be said.

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

I see, so I guess we should ask the NFL and NBA what percentage we can give the players next CBA.

Kinda like how players look at comparable players when negotiating a new deal and not the deal that just expired.

 

[mossey3535]

Substitute "some" players with "many"; the pending player turnover will also occur while entering into a new CBA that most likely will pay the players a smaller percentage of overall HRR going forward.

I agree, people have been sweeping the number of UFA's in the next two years under the rug. The numbers are pretty scary.

I think I recall someone saying that a free market wouldn't hurt the players, but if that's the case, shouldn't increased supply lower demand? We're not even counting the young guys coming up in the system either.

 

[Riptide]

Riptide,

Thanks for all the number work. I am looking at our spreadsheet about the latest offers. I am not sure exactly what is wrong, but it looks to me like there is an error in the calculation of revenue, especially for the year ending 2013. I see greater revenue growth there in real dollars than in any other year, so I think the math in the spread sheet is off some how.

Thanks again.

Thanks. Its under the assumption that they had played 82 games this year AND had 5% growth (although growth is adjustable). Yes it's unrealistic, however I'm not sure how/what else to put there in year 1 (2012) for revenue.

 

[Riptide]

The players aren't losing anything except money they haven't earned yet.

The owners are watching money they already had and invested lose value.

That's all that needs to be said.

Really? The players earned 1.8B last year. They're earning less than 100m combined this year. Half the owners lost money last year (or a 1/3 - pick whatever number makes you feel better)... assuming there's no season, 100% of the owners will lose money on hockey operations, yet will eventually win overall due to increase franchise value, and a better CBA. And no season doesn't mean they'll lose more than actually playing (for some of them).

So at the end of the day, 100% of the players lost money they can NEVER EVER recoup. 100% of the owners will lose money that they WILL recoup.

So who wins? This is a lose lose for the players. The ONLY way the players "win" is if they get rid of the cap. And even then the majority of the players lose. The cap has decreased the top salaries, yet increased everyone else's (which is the majority of the NHLPA).

 

[Ciao]

I agree, people have been sweeping the number of UFA's in the next two years under the rug. The numbers are pretty scary.

I think I recall someone saying that a free market wouldn't hurt the players, but if that's the case, shouldn't increased supply lower demand? We're not even counting the young guys coming up in the system either.

Increased supply won't lower demand, but it should lower player salaries simply by increasing the supply of hockey talent in relation to a more or less static level of demand for those services.

I think the players are leaving a lot of change on the table, but if they are willing to accept that risk I wish them well . . . and a speedy return to hockey one way or another.

 

[MrLouniverse]

The players aren't losing anything except money they haven't earned yet.


The owners are watching money they already had and invested lose value.

That's all that needs to be said.

You've made this argument over and over.

The owners are losing value in an asset that only translates to an appreciable cash loss at an arbitrary future point that they decide to liquidate it, if they ever decide to liquidate it.

The players are losing hard, guaranteed cash money every two weeks they don't sign a deal. They can never recover this money, the value of it will never rebound.

What point are you trying to make except you love Fehr and hate the NHL?

 

[Mr McV]

The players aren't losing anything except money they haven't earned yet.
The owners are watching money they already had and invested lose value.

That's all that needs to be said.

With that logic, I guess I should just quit my job.

 

[KingsFan7824]

You've made this argument over and over.

The owners are losing value in an asset that only translates to an appreciable cash loss at an arbitrary future point that they decide to liquidate it, if they ever decide to liquidate it.

The players are losing hard, guaranteed cash money every two weeks they don't sign a deal. They can never recover this money, the value of it will never rebound.

What point are you trying to make except you love Fehr and hate the NHL?

With that logic, I guess I should just quit my job.

Right? I mean, if the players aren't losing anything but money they haven't earned yet, why make such a big deal about the make whole money? The players aren't paid by the hour. They're on a yearly salary.

 

[CombatOnContact]

Why should they?

They're giving up percentage. Not all of it. But lots of it.

Now, what are you giving up?

What are they giving up? Maybe that's been the wrong question to ask all along. The PA is always spinning it like the owners aren't giving anything up are just "taking, taking, taking". But in reality, the owners have been "giving, giving, giving" since the last CBA (even before that). It's not "what are they giving up", but rather "what have they given up".

 

[NJDevs26]

So who wins? This is a lose lose for the players. The ONLY way the players "win" is if they get rid of the cap. And even then the majority of the players lose. The cap has decreased the top salaries, yet increased everyone else's (which is the majority of the NHLPA).

It's funny how the players claim they're for the middle class and how the NHL's proposals will destroy the middle class but if they blindly follow Fehr HE'LL be the one trying to destroy the middle class since his endgame seems to be going after the cap.

 

[NJDevs26]

Really? The players earned 1.8B last year. They're earning less than 100m combined this year. Half the owners lost money last year (or a 1/3 - pick whatever number makes you feel better)...

Yeah really...players have gone from about 57% of HRR to what's equivalent of a 3% total - for a select handful of players. Some owners are losing a lot of money by not playing, but some owners are making out by NOT losing money. Not one single player is making more money (or losing less) by having no NHL season.

Anyone trying to argue players have more leverage than the owners is just being silly.

 

[MNNumbers]

Thanks. Its under the assumption that they had played 82 games this year AND had 5% growth (although growth is adjustable). Yes it's unrealistic, however I'm not sure how/what else to put there in year 1 (2012) for revenue.

I would like to continue this, because I still don't get it. The revenue column means, "For the season ending in the year in column B, there was this much revenue" Is that right? That would mean, in 2011-12, there was the often assumed 3.3B in revenue.

Then, I would assume, and here is where I may be wrong, that, under a full season with normal revenue increases, that the increase for 2012-13 would be $3.3b * .05, right? But the spreadsheet is somehow double counting that.

The formulae in cells c6 and c18 are unlike all the rest, and that is the part that confuses me. I don't understand why the calculation for both of those years can't be the same as the rest. (Again, I understand we are assuming 'normal increases in revenue' and 'a full season played' because how all that gets dealt with if they play remains to be seen).