NHL/NHLPA Meeting over for 6/17.Meet on Monday in TO

[GKJ]

And BTW the rumor is that the new CBA is worked off the December 9th proposal.

Really now...? For a proposal that was deemed to be utter crap, maybe it wasn't

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

I agree that, in hindsight, Goodenow's strategy was flawed. But so was Bettman's. The League never had any intention of playing unless there was total capitulation by the players on every issue. Bettman's strategy through the fall and winter was that the league didn't really need the players. Real progress only began when Bettman found out his owners didn't want to use replacement players.

On every issue - or on linkage? Don't you think that the PA could of gotten a hell of lot of other consessions if they accepted linkage this time last year? I sure do!

 

[bcrt2000]

The ONLY reason that the owners need the CBA they are asking for is because they are like a bunch of children who can't control themselves from going to the cookie jar even though they know they shouldn't be. If the owners had acted like the adults they are and worked off a budget this new CBA would not be necessary, but because they can't police themselves they are forced to put themselves into a fool proof system. What happens when teams still lose money in the new CBA will that also be the players fault? If Edmonton couldn't make any money last season with a $33M payroll what will be different next season that will allow them to make money on a $33M payroll because they won't be getting any money from revenue sharing.

And BTW the rumor is that the new CBA is worked off the December 9th proposal.

you should know by now, its a law that owners & GMs can't keep to budgets, and the problem is that all of the teams in a pro sports league forms a partnership, but at the same time they are competing each other into the ground... you can't have McDonald's store #1 competing against McDonald's store #2... so they need to idiot proof the system so it works for all teams

 

[Gary]

The ONLY reason that the owners need the CBA they are asking for is because they are like a bunch of children who can't control themselves from going to the cookie jar even though they know they shouldn't be.

1. The players (even though the league stated time and time again what shape they were in) got a team of lawyers together 2 days after the last CBA to find loopholes to get more $$$. (Bonus clauses for rookies to make double or triple what the "agreed to" amount was). This made the owners just a tad pissed me thinks...
2. 10% yearly inflation on qualifiers at the $$$ the players were making would've run the game into the ground within 10 years or so. The owners plenty of time had to fork out millions in ONE season just for qualifiers and in return either had to shed spending or restrict their buying making it difficult for the small market teams to compete.
3. As has been discussed numerous times on here and elsewhere-They don't have the big T.V. market other pro-sports do to justify the radical $$$ figures.
4. A comment or 5 about the above 'cookie jar' comment. With salaries esculating like they were we witnessed Bobby Holik as a 2nd line center making $9 millionish/season, Martin Lapointe making 5 millionish/season as a 3rd liner (Although in fairness he was a young UFA and coming off a 30ish goal season). Were the teams crazy to spend that amount on those guys? That's arguable. It depends on how you look at it and IMO it's not as simple as the guys can't stop spending. There's a ripple effect in sports-The Ottawa Senators for example. They paid Daigle huge coin before he ever took to the ice. Why? Here's a kid that they THOUGHT could be the face of the franchise, that might be able to lead them to the promise land and to sell seats. It was a gamble-a horrible one, but that happens to anyone in any business. You need to take risks to succeed. The Senators were gambling on something they thought would be best for THEIR franchise. They were'nt thinking "Wait. If he don't pan out, what will the ripple effect be on 1st round draft choices." Again with the Ilsanders-They thought Yashin was 'the man'. He'd sell seats, lead them to the promise land, etc. They forked out the biggest contract ever on a guy who's a floater most nights. I can't beleive for the life of me that they were trying to screw the league. They were just looking out for themselves like any business does. A few gambles like this and the league is in shambles but let me say something though-There are plenty of other teams who would've signed these guys to *simular* contracts, because in this market-This was the $$$ the agent wanted for ANY team to sign these guys. Montreal for example offered the exact contract to Martin Lapointe.
5. The conclusion. In essense, you're right to a degree. These teams did'nt HAVE to sign those guys or others to ludicrous contracts, but what would happen if they did'nt? Being a Bruins fan I know damn well what happens. If you, as a organization DONT pay huge coin for players-You're labeled as *cheap*, lose fans, and have a hard time in the future getting star players signing with your club. Why? FANS and MEDIA. They're the ones demanding the team spend big bucks so as a organization you have to factor that in. Do I sign players to contracts that I personally think they're worth and risk alienting fans and getting a bad reputation? Or do I overpay, take a hit in the pocketbook, to put fans in the seats-AND even if I do overpay, it don't guarentee a winning team that will have fans coming out in droves.

Bottom Line: The owners alot of times could'nt keep their hands out of the cookie jar because fans and media would rebel against them. I live in Toronto and read about the Leafs all the time-It's unreal. Everytime a big name player hits the market the media/fans get all antsy about the thought of him in a Leafs jersey and to keep the fans at bay, the Leafs need to overpay at times IMO.

 

[Kritter471]

The players were on their side of the divide because Bob Goodenow had the NHLPA membership believing the owners were complete liars and rarely lost any significant money and were actually hiding substantial amounts of revenue. He used his highly popular Blue Fin project numbers where Goodenow found $52 million dollars of unreported revenues. Unfortunately much of this revenue is based on subsidiary businesses owned by the same NHL owner who were getting revenues somehow related to hockey.

Some of these were fair findings though. Finding TV revenue routed through MSG instead of the Rangers or concessions sales/parking routed through the arena even though the owner of the team gets a cutback (and still puts some of the money back into the team). Now, I'm not saying all $52 million existed, nor am I saying all $300 million in losses is false, but any business engages in creative accounting not for the purposes of fooling unions but for the purposes of more favorable tax breaks.

Personally, I think the NHLPA was really stretching the idea of "hockey related" revenue. Using the NHLPA logic, they would include revenues that the city as a whole benefitted from when hockey was being played - all increased restaurant and hotel revenues, all parking revenues, all increases in taxes etc. Take for example Winnipeg's baseball team the Goldeyes. They are owned by the city's mayor Sam Katz. I am positive that if the baseball team was actually the old Jets that the Blue Fin project would have used the $20 - $30 million annual city revenue benefit figures that were thrown around during the Save the Jets campaign.

Again, while not all extreme examples apply, many of the contentious issues involved luxury boxes, parking, concessions, team and arena sponsorships (Would the Air Canada Centre be named as such if the Leafs weren't playing there? or "The Dr. Pepper Bottling Company presents - your Dallas Stars"), team merchandise sales and team-run/player advertised local rinks and skating programs. Many of those can logically be included, at least in the part the team/owner recieves, as hockey-related revenue. Again, just because there is creative accounting about where the numbers are cateloged doesn't mean the numbers aren't there.

All this being established, if I were Bob Goodenow I would definitely have sat down and started negotiating when the NHL offered linkage and 50/50 profit sharing above a negotiated threshold in the February 2 NHL proposal . This proposal had linkage guaranteed between 53 and 55%. The league salary range was to have a minimum of $29.8 million and a maximum of $40 million.

See, to me these numbers are a sham because they were projected on the $2.1 billion from the 03/04 season, and when the PA would have tried to negotiate the issues such as a floor, QOs, arbitration, et al, the league would have dropped those linkage numbers to around the $34 million caps they were looking for. Whereas these new numbers, from what I've heard, are based on projected revenues for the first post-lockout season.

I'm not saying the PA's negotiation stragtegy didn't play a huge part in the length of the lockout, but the league shares the blame. This is a two-person dance, here, and both partners were refusing to come to the floor.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

I'm not saying the PA's negotiation stragtegy didn't play a huge part in the length of the lockout, but the league shares the blame. This is a two-person dance, here, and both partners were refusing to come to the floor.

Incorrect. The league "partner" had already come as far onto the floor as they could afford (according to their evidence since proven to be true) while still maintaining the goal of leveling the playing field between teams. The NHLPA, who didn't give two craps about whether or not teams were on even playing fields, refused to negotiate on those terms and so caused the season to be lost.

I don't blame the NHL at all for not moving off their stance when their stance was clearly already as far as they should have moved and bore so much more relation to reality and logic than the NHLPA stance.

 

[hockeytown9321]

On every issue - or on linkage? Don't you think that the PA could of gotten a hell of lot of other consessions if they accepted linkage this time last year? I sure do!

Nope. All or nothing.

 

[Kritter471]

Incorrect. The league "partner" had already come as far onto the floor as they could afford (according to their evidence since proven to be true) while still maintaining the goal of leveling the playing field between teams. The NHLPA, who didn't give two craps about whether or not teams were on even playing fields, refused to negotiate on those terms and so caused the season to be lost.

That's your opinion. My opinion is both sides were incredibly willing for the season to be cancelled because they felt it would give them maximum leverage. Neither side "cares" about the fans in this, no matter what lines they're feeding you.

And it's not about leveling the playing field. If it was, they'd have offered a salary floor from the beginning. It's about economic profitability.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

That's your opinion. My opinion is both sides were incredibly willing for the season to be cancelled because they felt it would give them maximum leverage.

One side (NHLPA) felt that. The other side took the season being cancelled because it was better than the alternative. That side (NHL) would have happily played a season if the NHLPA had found its way to reality sometime in the years earlier.

The PA was always the one talking about a "year or two" lockout. The NHL almost always characterized it as taking "as long as it takes to get a deal that works". Right there that tells you, if you know what to look for, which side was working on "leverage" and which had the legitimate issus.

Neither side "cares" about the fans in this, no matter what lines they're feeding you.

While it probably makes you feel better to spew hate-filled propaganda like that, it simply isn't true. The NHL cares about the fans because that's where their hockey-related paycheques come from - they want the fans to come to the games, watch the games, buy the merchandice, your little tinfoil hat remark notwithstanding. Anyone who thinks differently is being irrational. The things the league is fighting for in this lockout are good for the fans - yes, they're good for owners, too, but they are still good for fans as well. For the PA, however, the paychques come directly from ownership. They don't care if there isn't any fans as long as they continue to get paid, preferably on a scale based on the spending habits of the most prosperous team or richest owner. Only the top players worry about things like endorsements where fan exposure might mean something, and that's not something dealt with by a CBA anyways.

And it's not about leveling the playing field. If it was, they'd have offered a salary floor from the beginning. It's about economic profitability.

You can choose to believe anything you want. The evidence, however, indicates otherwise - that it IS about leveling the playing field, since the offers have clearly been designed to prevent some teams from spending five times more than other teams. Your little claim about a "salary floor" is a red herring - there wasn't any salary floor before and no one went out and put a team on the ice below what they're talking about now.

Clearly, had the PA bothered to start negotiating at some point, a salary floor was always something the NHL would allow to be put on the table. They accepted it right off the bat when it entered the picture - not the precise number, of course, but the idea. But since the PA never intended to honestly negotiate while they were working off their burnt earth "leverage" strategy of outwaiting the owners, people who may not be paying as close attention get fooled into thinking that it was never a possibility.

 

[jratelle19]

The difference between back then and today is, that back then the big guns always denied the reports but out of optimism and backed by the fact that nearly every paper was grabbing the story everybody ignored those denials...

Thanks for confirming what I already know. Doesn't matter. I won't believe it until I see the press conference. Call me a pessimist. Who cares?

 

[nyr7andcounting]

You can choose to believe anything you want. The evidence, however, indicates otherwise - that it IS about leveling the playing field, since the offers have clearly been designed to prevent some teams from spending five times more than other teams. Your little claim about a "salary floor" is a red herring - there wasn't any salary floor before and no one went out and put a team on the ice below what they're talking about now.

If it was about leveling the playing field than why don't owners just solve that problem by themselves and share all their revenues? Why not share 75% of local revenue and each team would have about the same amount of money coming in? What they have wanted this whole time has nothing to do with leveling the playing field. Without much revenue sharing they have been proposing a system that would see some teams make millions in profit annually and some teams still lose money. How is that a leveling playing field?

If that's what it was really about, the owners could have solved that problem by themselves and there would be no reason for a lockout.

And a salary floor isn't a red herring. Why didn't the league propose it in all offers to make sure that all teams are competative and there is a level playing field? It was only on the table because by definition, linkage has to have a salary floor. When linkage came off the table so did the floor.

 

[Pavel]

Thanks for confirming what I already know. Doesn't matter. I won't believe it until I see the press conference. Call me a pessimist. Who cares?

After everything that has happened I'd call you a realist, not a pessimist.

 

[djhn579]

If it was about leveling the playing field than why don't owners just solve that problem by themselves and share all their revenues? Why not share 75% of local revenue and each team would have about the same amount of money coming in? What they have wanted this whole time has nothing to do with leveling the playing field. Without much revenue sharing they have been proposing a system that would see some teams make millions in profit annually and some teams still lose money. How is that a leveling playing field?

If that's what it was really about, the owners could have solved that problem by themselves and there would be no reason for a lockout.

And a salary floor isn't a red herring. Why didn't the league propose it in all offers to make sure that all teams are competative and there is a level playing field? It was only on the table because by definition, linkage has to have a salary floor. When linkage came off the table so did the floor.

There is a difference between fixing a situation that has gotten out of hand and going to extremes. The NHL can level the playing field without sharing everything 100%. When most of us are talking about a level playing field, we are refering to the players on the ice. Most of us don't care if the owners make millions as long as the team we cheer for is entertaining. If the gap between team payrolls is no larger than $10M, I'd say the NHL has gone a long way to leveling the playing field and it is on each individual team to make sure they are profitable. With 100% revenue sharing, it would be too easy for a team or teams to not make much effort to be profitable.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

There is a difference between fixing a situation that has gotten out of hand and going to extremes. The NHL can level the playing field without sharing everything 100%. When most of us are talking about a level playing field, we are refering to the players on the ice. Most of us don't care if the owners make millions as long as the team we cheer for is entertaining. If the gap between team payrolls is no larger than $10M, I'd say the NHL has gone a long way to leveling the playing field and it is on each individual team to make sure they are profitable. With 100% revenue sharing, it would be too easy for a team or teams to not make much effort to be profitable.

Yea but that takes a lost season and a deal with the PA. Why go through all of that if all your looking for is a level playing field.

How much you make also has an affect on the players on the ice. It's a lot easier to recruit free agents if you have the best practice facilities, transportation etc...a lot easier to get the best coaches and management if you have the most money. Salaries aren't the only thing that go into making a team competative.

And what you say is exactly what revenue sharing would do. If a ton of revenues were shared, each team would have about the same money to put into salaries. Most teams would be within $10M of each other, give or take a few million so teams can make sure they are profitable.

If that was the problem, the NHL could have fixed it a long time ago....which tells me it isn't the problem or the focus of this lockout.

 

[NYIsles1*]

So let's see if I have this correct. The NBA is still playing games and both sides see the urgency to keep working over the weekend to keep the basic parameters like it's draft and free agency on schedule. Meanwhile the NHL after losing an entire year and it's official June draft needs the weekend off ?

BTW, it's hard to ask teams losing money operating to share revenue. Only Toronto, Vancouver and the Wild make any kind of tangible profit. If your spending 70m just on payroll to generate 85m in revenue it's not a workable business model if your losing 40m+ with all the overhead. This is what has happened in St Louis.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Yea but nobody is spending that much now. NYR will be spending mid-high 30's....your telling me they won't have any revenue to share?

 

[Crazy_Ike]

Yea but that takes a lost season and a deal with the PA. Why go through all of that if all your looking for is a level playing field.

No PA proposal would have leveled the playing field. The PA, until recently, was not interested in a level playing field. Their own quotes explicitly said they'd rather see teams fold than have the most money saturated teams (not always due to anything hockey related) pulled down to even paying the average, let alone what other teams could manage.

And what you say is exactly what revenue sharing would do. If a ton of revenues were shared, each team would have about the same money to put into salaries. Most teams would be within $10M of each other, give or take a few million so teams can make sure they are profitable.

If that was the problem, the NHL could have fixed it a long time ago....which tells me it isn't the problem or the focus of this lockout.

Leveling the playing field in this context means making sure that everyone can afford a respectable level of being able to acquire talent and compete. Your solution would work great... if the league was anywhere close to breaking even. In reality, all it would do is ensure every team loses money instead of just most teams. Since rich teams (again, often through non-hockey related resources) can more easily afford to do so, the health of the league remains just as bad, the richest teams continue to push the salaries beyond what the league can afford, and nothing changes.

You PA people who believe that revenue sharing would solve all problems have to eventually learn that it only works when the health of the league allows it.

The lockout is about lots of things, including ensuring a more healthy financial outlook for all teams. The END GOAL is to allow every team a reasonable chance at building a winner regardless of financial resources (not having to compete with teams using Wal-Mart money to build their rosters, for example) and not having to depend on a fluke run. That is the prime goal, and the financial issue is the means (along with being a symptom of major disparity/league health problems), not the ends itself. Financial health just isn't possible until the financial parity issue is resolved, and no amount of revenue sharing while the league is unhealthy can solve it until there's money to actually share.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

No PA proposal would have leveled the playing field. The PA, until recently, was not interested in a level playing field. Their own quotes explicitly said they'd rather see teams fold than have the most money saturated teams (not always due to anything hockey related) pulled down to even paying the average, let alone what other teams could manage.

Of course not, why would their goal be to level the playing field? They don't care who wins the Cup every year, they care about getting the most money they can. Which is exactly why, as I said, if leveling the playing field was the main goal it would have been easier to solve that problem without going through the PA first.

You PA people who believe that revenue sharing would solve all problems have to eventually learn that it only works when the health of the league allows it.

The lockout is about lots of things, including ensuring a more healthy financial outlook for all teams. The END GOAL is to allow every team a reasonable chance at building a winner regardless of financial resources (not having to compete with teams using Wal-Mart money to build their rosters, for example) and not having to depend on a fluke run. That is the prime goal, and the financial issue is the means (along with being a symptom of major disparity/league health problems), not the ends itself. Financial health just isn't possible until the financial parity issue is resolved, and no amount of revenue sharing while the league is unhealthy can solve it until there's money to actually share.

If there were revenue sharing and every owner sticked to a budget, the league would have a leveling playing field and no team would be unhealthy.

The point is that if leveling the playing field was the real goal of the NHL, than they would not have gone to the extreme they went in getting this deal done.

 

[Hi-wayman]

If it was about leveling the playing field than why don't owners just solve that problem by themselves and share all their revenues? Why not share 75% of local revenue and each team would have about the same amount of money coming in? What they have wanted this whole time has nothing to do with leveling the playing field. Without much revenue sharing they have been proposing a system that would see some teams make millions in profit annually and some teams still lose money. How is that a leveling playing field?

If that's what it was really about, the owners could have solved that problem by themselves and there would be no reason for a lockout.

And a salary floor isn't a red herring. Why didn't the league propose it in all offers to make sure that all teams are competative and there is a level playing field? It was only on the table because by definition, linkage has to have a salary floor. When linkage came off the table so did the floor.

A level playing field does not mean equal profits per team. It means team expenses will be roughly even. It means all teams can compete in bidding for free agents. Teams like NYR, Toronto, Detroit will continue toearn more, but only their share holders or owners will see the excess profits. The team itself will be limited to the same net revenue as all 29 other teams. Do you really think NYR would willingly share their TV revenue with all the other teams?

 

[tritone]

Is there a reason why every single post in the "Business of Hockey" turns into a owner vs player pissing contest?

 

[nyr7andcounting]

A level playing field does not mean equal profits per team. It means team expenses will be roughly even. It means all teams can compete in bidding for free agents. Teams like NYR, Toronto, Detroit will continue toearn more, but only their share holders or owners will see the excess profits. The team itself will be limited to the same net revenue as all 29 other teams. Do you really think NYR would willingly share their TV revenue with all the other teams?

First of all team profits have a big affect on bidding for free agents. All that extra money can go right back in to front office, coaches, practice facilities etc. All the extra "stuff" that the Rangers have that a poorer team might not have comes from having extra money. So equal profits would lead to a more equal playing field.

And second of all, if you want every team to be able to bid for free agents than I'll ask again, why not share as much revenues as you possibly can? That's the easiest way to get a level playing field...all teams would be bringing in nearly the same amount of revenue.

 

[misterjaggers]

Is there a reason why every single post in the "Business of Hockey" turns into a owner vs player pissing contest?

In many respects, it's a zero sum game.

 

[Scoogs]

Is there a reason why every single post in the "Business of Hockey" turns into a owner vs player pissing contest?

Because this is what the section is all about. The only business going on in the NHL right now is owners vs players.

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by tritone
Is there a reason why every single post in the "Business of Hockey" turns into a owner vs player pissing contest?

Because this is what the section is all about. The only business going on in the NHL right now is owners vs players.

Because many (most?) people here have the point of view of a sports fan - it's my team against the other guys. Just like few fans will watch a game where they are not rooting for one side, against the other, or have something emotionally invested in the outcome, people who come here again and again (and obviously have an unnatural interest in this piece of sports economic and legal theater) will tend to root for one side or the other - it's in our nature.