NHLPA's proposal--an outsiders POV

Status
Not open for further replies.

SENSible1*

Guest
Article
Players' proposal blasted
Labour maverick calls it `terrible'

KEN CAMPBELL
SPORTS REPORTER

The most influential union leader in the history of professional sports said he was shocked when he opened his New York Times yesterday morning and learned of the lengths the players are willing to go to end the NHL lockout.

Marvin Miller, who was hired by the Major League Baseball Players' Association in 1966 and made groundbreaking and legendary gains for baseball players during his 18-year tenure, called the NHL Players' Association's 24 per cent rollback on salaries "irresponsible" and said it sets a bad precedent, not only for hockey, but for other professional sports.

"It means either a terrible weakness on the part of the union and its members or terrible foolishness," said the 87-year-old Miller. "It's nothing in between."

Miller, who made a career out of overmatching baseball owners both at the bargaining table and in the courts, said the players should have either made their drastic proposal early in the process or not at all.

"There's nothing more disastrous for the future of a labour organization and its members than enduring a long stoppage, then folding," Miller said.

"You can take almost anything except that because you lose on both fronts."

Miller said the proposal is "ominous for the future," particularly in basketball where the players face the possibility of a lockout next season.

"I feel it's irresponsible to do that in terms of your own members' interests," Miller said, "to say nothing of the derivative effects when the owners in the other sports take a look at this."

The NHL will assess this deal and come to the same conclusion--"It means either a terrible weakness on the part of the union and its members or terrible foolishness," said the 87-year-old Miller. "It's nothing in between.".

The weakness of the PA's position has been laid bare for all to see.

The owners will come back with a cost-certainty deal and a small olive branch to let the union save face, but the writing is on the wall--the union is on their way to a massive and crushing loss. Whether it takes place now or in 8-12 months is entirely up to the PA.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
Marvin Miller is an idiot.

He was tremendous for the MLB players in the 70's and early 80's, but he's clearly lost it.

He doesn't think that Players Unions should EVER give ANYTHING to the owners. He was extremely pissed and Don Fehr & Gene Orza, when they put in they agreed to the ridiculously lenient steriod/drug policy in MLB.
 

NYIsles1*

Guest
Levitt's right..

"I think it would help address the ills for one year, but that's hardly a long-term solution," Levitt said. "I think that whatever solution is arrived at has to address what I regard as a systemic problem. Too much of every dollar is going out to salaries — 73 cents is simply non-economic. So whatever arrangement they come up with has to establish an enduring response to that problem. Merely to create a fix for one year will just put them back at the bargaining table one year from now and that's not good."
 

Egil

Registered User
Mar 6, 2002
8,838
1
Visit site
The rollback is the Union trying to buy the owners into accepting the current CBA. Nothing more. I doubt the final CBA has a 24% rollback in it either.
 

Motown Beatdown

Need a slump buster
Mar 5, 2002
8,572
0
Indianapolis
Visit site
NYIsles1 said:
"I think it would help address the ills for one year, but that's hardly a long-term solution," Levitt said. "I think that whatever solution is arrived at has to address what I regard as a systemic problem. Too much of every dollar is going out to salaries — 73 cents is simply non-economic. So whatever arrangement they come up with has to establish an enduring response to that problem. Merely to create a fix for one year will just put them back at the bargaining table one year from now and that's not good."

Does Levitt know the differnce between Players Salaries and Players Cost cause he's still mixing them up.
 

NYIsles1*

Guest
Thunderstruck said:
"It means either a terrible weakness on the part of the union and its members or terrible foolishness," said the 87-year-old Miller. "It's nothing in between.".
I think it is a weakness and can be called foolish because this offer is the NHLPA's admission that the league is losing significant revenue, nothing else, and it had to take three months into a stoppage to even admit it.

In Miller's world such an admission is unheard of because his negotiations were based on the teams making too much and getting more, this is the reverse of that.

What's worse is despite the offer it relly does not solve any of the problems in the long-term for the business.

Goodenow also threw a lot of veteran players with longer term deals under the bus in this offer.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
John Flyers Fan said:
Marvin Miller is an idiot.

He was tremendous for the MLB players in the 70's and early 80's, but he's clearly lost it.

Of course you know more about the negotiation process for professional sports than Mr. Miller.

I'll be sure to give your opinion all the merit it deserves.
 

Frenzy31

Registered User
May 21, 2003
7,175
1,995
NYIsles1 said:
I think it is a weakness and can be called foolish because this offer is the NHLPA's admission that the league is losing significant revenue, nothing else, and it had to take three months into a stoppage to even admit it.

In Miller's world such an admission is unheard of because his negotiations were based on the teams making too much and getting more, this is the reverse of that.

What's worse is despite the offer it relly does not solve any of the problems in the long-term for the business.

Goodenow also threw a lot of veteran players with longer term deals under the bus in this offer.

Yeah, but that is where it has to start. It isn't the young guys driving up the cost. It is the UFAs that are putting pressure on the whole system. One guy gets a 10 million dollar contract, then everyone wants one who is on the same level.

It isn't a bad idea. Lowering the top end salaries will wind up setting the bar for top end tallent (The Elites - Forsberg, Pronger, Lidstrom...) at about 7 million or so, down less then 3 million, but better then the 10. The rest of the salaries will start to fall in line with that 7 million. As everyone takes less. New Elite UFAs (this coming year, will go after salaries based on the new high - 7 million, the other players will wind up taking less.

The owner can help themselves by having some restraint. Especially w/ revenue sharing (or in this case Debt sharing - how do you share revenue if everyone is losing money).
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
Thunderstruck said:
Of course you know more about the negotiation process for professional sports than Mr. Miller.

I'll be sure to give your opinion all the merit it deserves.

Miller's thought process is never, never, never, never, never, never give anything to the owners. Then go to court and win in court.

No doubt that Miller kicked the owners asses in MLB for 20 years, and the MLB players union is perhaps the strongest union in the United States, in large part due to Marvin miller

Problem is that he still thinks that this is the 1960's & 70's, and that the players are still like indentures servants/slaves etc.

At some point even unions heads have to say "it's enough, we occasionally have to think about the good of the game/league etc."


Marvin Miller and Gene Upshaw are at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to union leadership. Upshaw gives everything, Miller gives nothing ...... ideally somewhere in the middle would work best for the players/owners.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
"There's nothing more disastrous for the future of a labour organization and its members than enduring a long stoppage, then folding," Miller said.

"You can take almost anything except that because you lose on both fronts."

Miller, who made a career out of overmatching baseball owners both at the bargaining table and in the courts, said the players should have either made their drastic proposal early in the process or not at all.
Miller was arguing that tactics were wrong, not simply the concession. His point is that it makes no sense to wait until you are 3 months into a lockout to finally begin making the concessions that everyone knew were coming.

The NHLPA's tactics have been hugely flawed right from the beginning of this process and Miller is right to call Goodenow and co. on it. Frankly I've been amazed at the stupidity they've displayed. When the NHL puts the boots to the players they will have no one to blame but their leadership.

PS On a personal level, it must really hurt Goodenow to have his idol rip him in public for his abysmal performance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Thunderstruck said:
The NHLPA's tactics have been hugely flawed right from the beginning of this process and Miller is right to call Goodenow and co. on it. .

i agree the unions tactics have been a bit off, but not their position. its not easy to deal with the bullys on the ownership side and the players have made mistakes.

the owners are willing to destroy the NHL as we know it, both in terms of the labour stoppage and their unwilligness to agree to a system that is built on them controlling themselves. the players have much more respect for the fans and the game and therefore have not dealt in the same cold, callous, cut throat manner as the league in this CBA negotiation.

dr
 

SENSible1*

Guest
DementedReality said:
i agree the unions tactics have been a bit off, but not their position. its not easy to deal with the bullys on the ownership side and the players have made mistakes.

the owners are willing to destroy the NHL as we know it, both in terms of the labour stoppage and their unwilligness to agree to a system that is built on them controlling themselves. the players have much more respect for the fans and the game and therefore have not dealt in the same cold, callous, cut throat manner as the league in this CBA negotiation.

dr
Good of you to show up and admit, even with the requesite and laughable spin job, that Goodneow and co. have screwed the pooch.

I wonder where the rest of the PA apologists are?

You'd think they'd want to put in their two cents on the opinion of the most respected sports union leader in history.
 

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,088
13,876
Missouri
NYIsles1 said:
I think it is a weakness and can be called foolish because this offer is the NHLPA's admission that the league is losing significant revenue, nothing else, and it had to take three months into a stoppage to even admit it.

In Miller's world such an admission is unheard of because his negotiations were based on the teams making too much and getting more, this is the reverse of that.

What's worse is despite the offer it relly does not solve any of the problems in the long-term for the business.

Goodenow also threw a lot of veteran players with longer term deals under the bus in this offer.

Agree totally: The players have admitted that the league is in trouble. They have offered concessions that essentially agree with what the Levitt report said. They have based the revenue sharing aspects on the Levitt numbers. They've implicitly conceeded the numbers are correct.

I disagree he threw vets with longer contracts under the bus. To a certain extent certainly...some of the numbers are huge. However, more particularily he threw lower paid players under the bus and lower paid multi year deal guys completely under the bus. $6 mil from $8 mil means nothing...375k vs 500k is significant.

But in the end he threw no one under the bus because there were no significant changes to the system...no changes to the real problem.

As has been implied...to give up that much and basically admit your position is crud means the NHL has the union on the run. Does the union cave now and get some sympathy concessions from the owners or get absolutely crushed later on? Whether the owners are bully's or not means little...they wouldn't have this work stoppage and be this serious about the system changes just to bully the union. They are doing it because they think it is necessary. NOw perhaps a low hard cap isn't necessary but I honestly can't see them coming back with anything less than that. A tax system starting at $35 mil with an upper level hard cap that no one can exceed.
 
Last edited:

NHLFanSince2020

What'd He Say?
Feb 22, 2003
3,092
4
Visit site
DementedReality said:
the owners are willing to destroy the NHL as we know it, both in terms of the labour stoppage and their unwilligness to agree to a system that is built on them controlling themselves.
I know the following is obvious but it is the owners that want a system built on teams controlling themselves (salary cap) but the NHLPA does not want that. You then conclude that the owners want to destory the NHL?
 

djhn579

Registered User
Mar 11, 2003
1,747
0
Tonawanda, NY
getnziggywidit said:
I know the following is obvious but it is the owners that want a system built on teams controlling themselves (salary cap) but the NHLPA does not want that. You then conclude that the owners want to destory the NHL?

I would also look at the reported fact that the league has lost $1.8B over the life time of the last CBA that they care more for the league than they are given credit for. How many people are willing to lose that much money for something they don't care about?
 

Donnie D

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
796
62
Visit site
John Flyers Fan said:
Upshaw gives everything, Miller gives nothing ...... ideally somewhere in the middle would work best for the players/owners.

Upshaw gave so much (a salary cap) and his players became wealthy, obtained the most unrestrictive free agency in all of sports and assured that his employer would still make enough money to continue paying those high salaries.

Upshaw is the only sports union leader that has realized that to maximize salaries it is better to take a smaller percentage and help make the pie bigger than to fight over a how big a slice you get while destroying the financial health of the game.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Donnie D said:
Upshaw gave so much (a salary cap) and his players became wealthy, obtained the most unrestrictive free agency in all of sports and assured that his employer would still make enough money to continue paying those high salaries.

Upshaw is the only sports union leader that has realized that to maximize salaries it is better to take a smaller percentage and help make the pie bigger than to fight over a how big a slice you get while destroying the financial health of the game.


:handclap: :handclap: :handclap:

Nice to see that someone gets it.

The players are pissing away 100's of millions of dollars because they are too stupid to get on with the business of negotiating cost certainty and helping the revenues grow.
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
Donnie D said:
Upshaw gave so much (a salary cap) and his players became wealthy, obtained the most unrestrictive free agency in all of sports and assured that his employer would still make enough money to continue paying those high salaries.

Upshaw is the only sports union leader that has realized that to maximize salaries it is better to take a smaller percentage and help make the pie bigger than to fight over a how big a slice you get while destroying the financial health of the game.

Upshaw also gave up guarunteed salaries, as well as a hard cap. It's great if you're an owner, or a star and are getting a huge signing bonus up front, but it sucks if you're the 30th man on a 55 man roster.
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
Thunderstruck said:
The players are pissing away 100's of millions of dollars because they are too stupid to get on with the business of negotiating cost certainty and helping the revenues grow.

Helping revenues gorw ???

Well the easiest way to do that would be to get rid of the antiquated thinking and makreting that the NHL currently has.

Bill Wirtz could right a book on "How to destroy hockey in a big city."

Maximizing revenues actually takes some brains and forward thinking.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
John Flyers Fan said:
Helping revenues gorw ???

Well the easiest way to do that would be to get rid of the antiquated thinking and makreting that the NHL currently has.

Bill Wirtz could right a book on "How to destroy hockey in a big city."

Maximizing revenues actually takes some brains and forward thinking.

Sounds like you'd like to see the PA ask for a say in the marketing of the league. That would be a worthwhile bargaining point.
 

Iceman23

Registered User
Dec 26, 2003
65
0
I dunno, the NHL has a wonderful opportunity coming up with two very special players (Ovechkin, Crosby). If they are truly as great as many think, then they could very well introduce a new generation of US fans to hockey. It might not be as hard as everyone thinks to sell the game down in the states. Look what happened in LA with Gretzky. If there is a good product on the ice/field/court/ etc etc, they will come. Colorado is a perfect example of this.
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
Thunderstruck said:
Sounds like you'd like to see the PA ask for a say in the marketing of the league. That would be a worthwhile bargaining point.

They don't necessarily need a say in marketing the NHL, it would be tough to actually do that, but I do believe that somehow, someway Bettman and his group need to find a better way to market the NHL nationally, and a number of NHL owners (Jacobs, Wirtz etc. ) need to take lessons from some of the more successful NHL franchises.

In the early 90's Chicago was one of the NHL's premiere NHL franchises, and now they have trouble drawing 14,000. :banghead: Hmmmm lets not televise home games, so that I can piss off all of Chicago .... :banghead: :banghead:
 

SENSible1*

Guest
John Flyers Fan said:
They don't necessarily need a say in marketing the NHL, it would be tough to actually do that, but I do believe that somehow, someway Bettman and his group need to find a better way to market the NHL nationally, and a number of NHL owners (Jacobs, Wirtz etc. ) need to take lessons from some of the more successful NHL franchises.

Well if the end result of the Shanahan summit is players sitting on a competition committee, what is to prevent the league and players from forming a marketing committee?
 

Donnie D

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
796
62
Visit site
John Flyers Fan said:
Upshaw also gave up guarunteed salaries, as well as a hard cap. It's great if you're an owner, or a star and are getting a huge signing bonus up front, but it sucks if you're the 30th man on a 55 man roster.

But you forgot - huge signing bonuses have taken their place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->