GKJ
Global Moderator
- Feb 27, 2002
- 187,393
- 39,385
Icey said: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
Icey said:And BTW the rumor is that the new CBA is worked off the December 9th proposal.
hockeytown9321 said: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.
Icey said: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.
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.Luc Labelle said: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.
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.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.
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.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.
Kritter471 said: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.
Beukeboom Fan said: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!
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.Crazy_Ike said: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.
Kritter471 said: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.
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...
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?Crazy_Ike said: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.
jratelle19 said: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 said: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.
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.djhn579 said: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 said: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.
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.
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.Crazy_Ike said: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.
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.Crazy_Ike said: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.
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?nyr7andcounting said: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.
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.Hi-wayman said: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?
In many respects, it's a zero sum game.tritone said:Is there a reason why every single post in the "Business of Hockey" turns into a owner vs player pissing contest?
tritone said:Is there a reason why every single post in the "Business of Hockey" turns into a owner vs player pissing contest?
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.Scugs said:Because this is what the section is all about. The only business going on in the NHL right now is owners vs players.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?