Optimistic there won't be a NHL labor stoppage

[Melrose Munch]

Do you mean the lowering of the salary floor or the disappearance of the high-profile contracts?

You can't lower the floor on a revenue based hard cap, unless the revenue % is adjusted

And also, the players would scream. There's your lockout. And the end of the NHL in the US.

 

[Ernie]

And also, the players would scream. There's your lockout. And the end of the NHL in the US.

The players would scream about lowering the floor? Maybe a bit. But it's hardly something they're going to cancel the season over, considering they're guaranteed their 57% regardless. If they lower the floor a bit while at the same time increasing revenue sharing, I think the players would be just fine.

 

[Dado]

Because of the way escrow is handled, it would be to the advantage of the average player to have the floor drop, while maintaing the current revenue percentage. It's the reverse of the front-loaded subsidy the average player pays for Kovalchuk Erhoff etc.

 

[Melrose Munch]

The players would scream about lowering the floor? Maybe a bit. But it's hardly something they're going to cancel the season over, considering they're guaranteed their 57% regardless. If they lower the floor a bit while at the same time increasing revenue sharing, I think the players would be just fine.

They can lower the floor and lower escrow. It won't just be one thing.

 

[Epsilon]

Why do people keep talking about the players "causing a lockout" or "canceling the season"? A lockout is owner-initiated, and I really, really doubt the players are going to consider a strike unless it's over guaranteed contracts.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Why do people keep talking about the players "causing a lockout" or "canceling the season"? A lockout is owner-initiated, and I really, really doubt the players are going to consider a strike unless it's over guaranteed contracts.

People hate unions and blame the whole world on them.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Why do people keep talking about the players "causing a lockout" or "canceling the season"? A lockout is owner-initiated, and I really, really doubt the players are going to consider a strike unless it's over guaranteed contracts.

Agreed.

If the owners were adament on getting rid of guaranteed contracts then an appropriate tradeoff would be to get rid of the cap. I personally think the current system with a cap in place works quite nicely.

Do away with the cap floor as it currently stands. I liked the proposal of making the cap floor a percentage of the cap ceiling, that way we avoid having summers like this past one. While it'll work to some players advantage when they are being paid well above what they're worth, in the future it will lead to other players being buried in the minor leagues.

I wouldn't be against abolishing restricted free agency either, but adopting a similar system as baseball where teams who lose their "home grown" players receive a compensatory draft pick.

Improving revenue sharing is a must, but this shouldn't be an issue that causes a strike or lockout. I would also like to see tougher benchmarks that teams have to meet in order to qualify for revenue sharing. If an organization is losing money because they are only drawing 50% capacity, I would feel quite upset that my team which is being supported at 100% capacity is using revenue generated from my ticket price to fun a team that isn't supported. This will either lead to a few more teams relocating to more suitable markets, or owners of those teams smartening up and actually giving a damn.

Revenue sharing shouldn't be to support teams that aren't supported by their local market. Revenue sharing should be to support teams that are well supported by their local market, but whose economic conditions severely limit all revenue streams.

I would also like to see more guidance on contract structures as right now it seems a bit convoluted. Tighten up those provisions and eliminate the loopholes.

 

[chasespace]

I wouldn't be against abolishing restricted free agency either, but adopting a similar system as baseball where teams who lose their "home grown" players receive a compensatory draft pick.

I love this idea.

In relation to the cap floor discussion if they want to recalculate how it's formulated so that it ends up being lower they may have to lower the RFA status to, say, ending at 25(or 5 seasons in the NHL with a minimum of 30-40 games played).

 

[kdb209]

Why do people keep talking about the players "causing a lockout" or "canceling the season"? A lockout is owner-initiated, and I really, really doubt the players are going to consider a strike unless it's over guaranteed contracts.

But would the NHLPA make a binding commitment not to strike during the season/playoffs if the League did not commence a lockout and began the season under the terms of the expired CBA - there's the rub.

In 1992, the League did not lock out the players and the season commenced under the old work rules while negotiations continued and then the NHLPA went on strike on April 1, right before the playoffs.

In 1994, MLB did not lock out the players and then the MLBPA went on strike in August.

Absent continuing productive negotiations and a pledge by the NHLPA not to strike, the owners would have no choice but to lock out the players. A late season strike, which threatens the playoffs and playoff revenues - after the bulk of player salaries have already been paid - gives way too much leverage to the players and is a scenario that the League simply would not risk. Instead, they would lock out the players at the start of the season, when they have the most leverage - when both sides stand to lose in salary and revenues.

 

[thinkwild]

The owners great victory in the last cba was:
Revenues % to Players
----------- ---------------

$2.2 Bil ….. 55%
$2.4 Bil ….. 56%
$2.7 Bil ….. 57%

And now revenues are

$3 Bil

Leading to the percentage that should go to the players becoming …



.. Uh less, surely like the nfl and nba?


The players get 57% of revenues. That was the owners big victory. They locked the players out a year to get that. Goodenow told the players would it take them 2 or 3 years of sitting out to prevent that. And 2 to 3 yrs is what the players surely know is ahead if them now if they want to try and remove that linkage. Hard to believe they are interested in that war at this point in time, it would have been easier last time.



If there was no cap and no floor, if they drop both next cba - nothing changes in the big picture of the relationship bargained between owners and players. The players still would get 5x% of revenues. The cap and floor are just administrative conveniences. Hard to imagine either side going to the mat to fight for the cap and ceiling while the percentage of revenues is there.


It is fans that saw the range between top and bottom payroll being reduced to $16 mil as one of the main achievements of the last cba. That was the proof of parity. And now? Under the bus apparently.

So now, if there are teams incapable of spending to the floor, with the revenue sharing, parity, triple caps, and 30 equal teams presumably totally having failed them, what would fans want:
- the floor to drop for the team. They’d have no chance to compete on the ice, but still be in the league
-if teams cant pay the bills, move or go bankrupt. The $16 mil range was fan victory - it stays, team goes.

During the last cba, whenever any team was threatened with bankruptcy, cba changes were pointed to as the solution to keep all 30 teams. Is it keeping all 30 teams, or keeping the $16 mil difference that fans call parity that is more important for fans? Would you sacrifice parity if it meant saving a team? Or sacrifice a team if they cant maintain pace with the new parity?

If the owners wanted to save the team, they could simply share more revenues rather than drop the floor. But what sacrifice would fans make I wonder?

 

[Dado]

All I can tell you is this fan has no problem with the league shrinking by six teams.

Que sera, sera...

 

[CGG]

43% of $3 billion is much higher than 46% of $2 billion. As a whole, the current CBA has worked out great for the league. I can see absolutely no case where the owners can actually justify locking players out. They have a triple cap. They are making piles of money collectively. If teams are in rough shape, that can be fixed through revenue sharing. Salaries might have escalated, but if they go beyond 57% then escrow kicks in so it isn't an issue on a league-wide basis.

Sure they can threaten and try to go after guaranteed contracts, front loaded retirement deals, cap floor and stuff like that, but none of it will actually change the 43% number that they currently get. None of it is worth jeopardizing a season for.

The lockout only worked last time because Gary had half the world believing the greedy players were actually on strike and looking for more money (hence the phrase "work stoppage") and Goodenow did a terrible job in conveying his message. I don't think the same will happen this time with Fehr in charge. Can Gary really paint the players as "greedy" when they can't physically get more than 57% of an ever-growing pie? I don't think so.

The only argument he's got is "Atlanta had to move! Phoenix is in trouble! Florida sucks!" But all of that can be fixed by steering more money from Toronto and the Rangers to the struggling teams (or by moving the struggling teams to better locations, but that's another story).

 

[Mungman]

All I can tell you is this fan has no problem with the league shrinking by six teams.

Que sera, sera...

Sure, while we're throwing out craptastic arbitrary ideas how about the last six Stanley Cup runners up be the six to go (I mean these teams OBVIOUSLY have issues closing the deal)! How you feel about it now.

Que Sera Sera...

Never going to happen, look how hard the league is working in the southwest to keep things afloat with the rumours of the $60MM they carved off of ASG being used to make PHX more attractive. If contraction were on the table there's the first place to do it, and there's the 60MM to soften the blow!

 

[Dado]

How you feel about it now.

How do I feel about what?

Never going to happen...

It's coming. I am very sure of this. And it won't be just the NHL.

Peak Sports has come and gone.

 

[Fehr Time*]

People hate unions and blame the whole world on them.

Certainly shows the power of the corporate media eh? I wonder if the league will actually attempt to negotiate with the players this time instead of hiring p.r. folks to get their message of lies and deceit out like the last lockout.

 

[Fehr Time*]

How do I feel about what?



It's coming. I am very sure of this. And it won't be just the NHL.

Peak Sports has come and gone.

Yep, the whole system has become overinflated, and is reliant now on major taxpayer subsidies in many locales to 'maintain itself'. People have had enough of this and downsizing is inevitable.

 

[chasespace]

Yep, the whole system has become overinflated, and is reliant now on major taxpayer subsidies in many locales to 'maintain itself'. People have had enough of this and downsizing is inevitable.

What are these "many locales" you speak of?

 

[Fehr Time*]

What are these "many locales" you speak of?

Most of the ones with pro sports teams unfortunately. People are (finally) getting fed up with greedy owners attempting to steal tax dollars to fund arenas, stadiums, etc. This is what the current pro sports environment is largely based on in N.A. - billionaires using taxpayers to socialize losses so they can capitalize profits. It is a house of cards that is going to collapse. Even the most elaborate of ponzi schemes can only last for so long.

 

[chasespace]

Most of the ones with pro sports teams unfortunately. People are (finally) getting fed up with greedy owners attempting to steal tax dollars to fund arenas, stadiums, etc. This is what the current pro sports environment is largely based on in N.A. - billionaires using taxpayers to socialize losses so they can capitalize profits. It is a house of cards that is going to collapse. Even the most elaborate of ponzi schemes can only last for so long.

Sorry, I had misinterpreted what I quoted.

In relation to what you brought up, here is a (somewhat)slanted look at economic corruption behind sports that you and others may like to read: http://www.akdart.com/sports.html

 

[Melrose Munch]

Certainly shows the power of the corporate media eh? I wonder if the league will actually attempt to negotiate with the players this time instead of hiring p.r. folks to get their message of lies and deceit out like the last lockout.

exactly. I don't like my team paying for the existence of others.

 

[saffronleaf]

The owners great victory in the last cba was:
Revenues % to Players
----------- ---------------

$2.2 Bil ….. 55%
$2.4 Bil ….. 56%
$2.7 Bil ….. 57%

And now revenues are

$3 Bil

Leading to the percentage that should go to the players becoming …



.. Uh less, surely like the nfl and nba?


The players get 57% of revenues. That was the owners big victory. They locked the players out a year to get that. Goodenow told the players would it take them 2 or 3 years of sitting out to prevent that. And 2 to 3 yrs is what the players surely know is ahead if them now if they want to try and remove that linkage. Hard to believe they are interested in that war at this point in time, it would have been easier last time.



If there was no cap and no floor, if they drop both next cba - nothing changes in the big picture of the relationship bargained between owners and players. The players still would get 5x% of revenues. The cap and floor are just administrative conveniences. Hard to imagine either side going to the mat to fight for the cap and ceiling while the percentage of revenues is there.


It is fans that saw the range between top and bottom payroll being reduced to $16 mil as one of the main achievements of the last cba. That was the proof of parity. And now? Under the bus apparently.

So now, if there are teams incapable of spending to the floor, with the revenue sharing, parity, triple caps, and 30 equal teams presumably totally having failed them, what would fans want:
- the floor to drop for the team. They’d have no chance to compete on the ice, but still be in the league
-if teams cant pay the bills, move or go bankrupt. The $16 mil range was fan victory - it stays, team goes.

During the last cba, whenever any team was threatened with bankruptcy, cba changes were pointed to as the solution to keep all 30 teams. Is it keeping all 30 teams, or keeping the $16 mil difference that fans call parity that is more important for fans? Would you sacrifice parity if it meant saving a team? Or sacrifice a team if they cant maintain pace with the new parity?

If the owners wanted to save the team, they could simply share more revenues rather than drop the floor. But what sacrifice would fans make I wonder?

Your post is very insightful.

However, I feel that you have presented a false dichotomy.

Pardon me if I'm just stating the obvious and if you had somehow implied it, but you claim that we / the league must choose between parity+contraction or disparity+no contraction.

What about relocation though?

I don't want to derail this thread into a relocation thread, but allow me to just dabble in it a bit.

If you look at attendance rates and what not, there are only a few teams struggling. Off the top of my head, I'd guess that the bottom three/four teams are:

- Phoenix Coyotes
- Florida Panthers
- Columbus Bluejackets
- New York Islanders

Obviously the Islanders are in a great market, and they should not really be considered for contraction. It was arena and management issues that have plagued the team. New York can handle two teams.

So you're left with three vulnerable teams.

Personally, and forgive me if this comes off as an unwarranted bias towards 'traditional' markets (i.e. markets where winters and ice are prevalent), I think Columbus might be worth keeping. But of course, I might be wrong.

With Phoenix and Florida, you really have to think that there are so many hockey-starved markets out there.

The three elements you need are Arena, Ownership, and Fan Interest. Getting all of those three together is difficult. But here are some prospective markets out there (some of these lack one or two of the abovementioned components, but given time, it may be possible for them to acquire these components and become realistic hockey markets):

- Houston (massive city; 6th largest by population in North America [Mexico City, New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Toronto, Houston]; would spark great Texan rivalry with the Stars; possibly an interested owner; arena exists)

- Kansas City (arena exists; has been considered by other owners before)

- Quebec City (just has to get its **** together with respect to the arena; Quebecor is an interested owner)

- Portland / Seattle (I know Seattle will probably never get an arena anytime soon, but the pacific northwest is an untapped hockey market)

- Milwaukee (some components not there, but Wisconsin is a great hockey state)

- Las Vegas

- Norfolk / Hampton

etc. etc.

Markets are out there waiting to be tapped.

The NHL might have less exposure in the US when compared to NFL, MLB and NBA. But think about it - the NBA has 29 teams in the US, the NFL has 32, MLB has 29. Comparatively, the NHL only has 23 in the US. There are markets out there. If there is one of the major four leagues that could have more than 30 teams, it's the NHL. I'm not advocating expansion because of talent pool issues, but I'm just pointing out that other options may exist if some teams cannot hang on to the cap floor.

 

[knorthern knight]

Actually, contraction/expansion is probably on topic here, in the sense that the NHLPA might consider the trafeoff of a lower percentage of gross revenue in return for more players being employed. As for your list of potential cities, I really think we should have a sticky/FAQ so we don't have to repeat the same answers to every newcomer

• - Houston (massive city; 6th largest by population in North America [Mexico City, New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Toronto, Houston]; would spark great Texan rivalry with the Stars; possibly an interested owner; arena exists)

  The way the arena lease is structured, only Les Alexander can have an NHL team in there. Thanks to the financial meltdown, plus his divorce, Alexander is no longer a billionaire. He's still quite rich by our standards, but may not be up to owning an NHL team. And he's also 68 years old, and probably not looking to start a new sports franchise.
  

• - Kansas City (arena exists; has been considered by other owners before)

  Same problem as Atlanta. The arena is too profitable. They can make more profit from 25 concerts/tractor-pulls/WWE/UFC events than from 45 hockey games or basketball games. The mayor was trash-talking both the NBA and the NHL in an article recently. And Kansas City simply is not a great sports town. The NHL had a disastrous 2-season fiasco with the Kansas City Scouts, who are now the New Jersey Devils. And the Kansas City Kings NBA team left to become the Sacramento Kings.
  

• - Portland / Seattle (I know Seattle will probably never get an arena anytime soon, but the pacific northwest is an untapped hockey market)

  Paul Allen, who controls the Rose Garden in Portland does not want an NHL franchise... period... end of story.
  

• - Milwaukee (some components not there, but Wisconsin is a great hockey state)

  Chicago will fight it just like Toronto will fight Hamilton.
  
  

  [*]- Las Vegas

  The NHL does NOT want a team in Vegas, due to gambling. Plus there is great doubt about Vegas as a sports city.
  
  

  [*]- Norfolk / Hampton

  That area is a bunch of small squabbling jurisdictions, rather than one large city. The "Glendale experience" will probably scare away any small town that thinks about "going big league".

 

[thinkwild]

I feel that you have presented a false dichotomy.

Pardon me if I'm just stating the obvious and if you had somehow implied it, but you claim that we / the league must choose between parity+contraction or disparity+no contraction.

What about relocation though?

What about relocating to Moose Jaw? We’d have to drop the floor down to about $10 mil to allow them to compete. But we could balance that perhaps by raising the ceiling to $70mil.

That would be silly right, not to mention flying in the face of all the ideals fans publicly argued for in getting the salary cap last time?

Surely they would only allow relocation to a market that can show a business plan that at the very least has them selling out every game at top prices and thus making enough to ice a team at the salary floor. Like Winnipeg! Relocation would only be to places that can maintain the parity, never to a place that would require the salary floor to drop in order to allow them a chance to ice a team.


Revenues have been growing lately. Many fans fear this means that some teams are having a tough time keeping up and are looking to radical lockout action by the owners in hopes to claw back more revenues from the players to give to struggling owners, thinking this last tweak will finally fix the problem.

But a lot of the revenue growth lately has been central revenue growth shared equally, not to mention that as revenues rise so does revenue sharing; it’s also linked to revenues. So why is there an assumption that as revenues have risen lately that more teams are unable to compete without cba changes? Just boot-licking practice?

But IF it’s true, if Gary Bettmans CBA to save all 30 teams in their current markets has failed a market like Atlanta and others to come, what are their options?

Either they are:
- allowed to spend less (Disparity via lowering the salary floor), or
- they receive enough revenue sharing to continue spending to the minimum (Parity via rev sharing), or
- (Parity via relocation/contraction/bankruptcy.)
A trichotomy if you will.

You wouldn’t lower the salary floor to allow an expansion team into the league, nor a relocated team, right? But many fans lately are proposing just that cba change to fix the cba problem which is that even though Gary Bettman got the perfect cba, some teams still cant make a profit. So to fix this they are proposing to throw parity under the bus.


Contraction is a silly concept, if by that you mean 29 nhl owners vote one owner off the island and pay him off as was done to the Expos. It’s hard to picture the circumstances that would lead to that in the NHL. Especially since the owners already created a method for dealing with those problem welfare cases - they decrease their revenue sharing cheques each year for 3 years until they only get half what their due, which is basically ensuring the struggling go bankrupt if they couldn’t even compete when receiving max revenue sharing cheques. Contraction via bankruptcy, then sure

Relocation is just another means of keeping the parity (I thought had already accounted for that saying relocate or fold, move or go bankrupt).
Bankruptcy also keeps the parity.
Lowering the floor sacrifices parity to save a team that probably should fold or relocate.


The reason there is confusion, or that it appears to many as a false dichotomy, is perhaps that many fans assumed a cap meant saving all 30 teams, when in fact it assures that teams that cant keep up are relocated or go bankrupt.

Whenever a team was struggling during the last cba, immediately all would point to a salary cap and the resultant parity as the solution to all the teams problems.

Now that we have a cap, if a team can still no longer compete, what do fans vote to do this time? Last time 80% here regularly voted to lockout players until they accepted a cap thinking that would fix it for sure. Yet here we are again apparently suggesting find a new way of ensuring that a little more of the money we spend on hockey goes to the owners instead of the players.

As to which city should they relocate to, sure those are all possible cities in the right circumstance, but its often talked of as if its Loblaws centrally deciding where to plop their next store.

The three elements you need are Arena, Ownership, and Fan Interest.

You forgot the most important one in this day and age - business dollars for the sponsorships and suite revenues. The NHL model is highly dependent on those business class seat sales. All the fan interest in the world wont save you without it. Unless they drop the floor and sacrifice parity

I think we can assume that any time there is a team that has used up all its options, that the league will either:
allow them to sell and relocate if they can approve a market that has an owner/investor willing to buy the team and its a market that converges with the NHL’s expansion plans, or
wait for them go bankrupt and then have a new team enter the league by expansion fees.

But wondering whether we should ‘allow’ relocation as an option seems a pretty pointless question, of course the owners with millions in equity on the line will. Whenever a team can no longer afford to continue icing a team at the salary floor, or just if an owner feels like moving really (See NFL during salary cap years)

Actually, contraction/expansion is probably on topic here, in the sense that the NHLPA might consider the trafeoff of a lower percentage of gross revenue in return for more players being employed.

This is perhaps the thinking of traditional labour unions, but the NHLPA is an association of the worlds elite in a particularly lucrative occupation. They arent looking for jobs, jobs, jobs for Joe the plumber. It’s show me the money.

The players taking less money as a trade-off for the owners bringing in more teams and jobs? Now there’s an example of a false dichotomy.

 

[knorthern knight]

This is perhaps the thinking of traditional labour unions, but the NHLPA is an association of the worlds elite in a particularly lucrative occupation. They arent looking for jobs, jobs, jobs for Joe the plumber. It’s show me the money.

How many Ovechkins/Crosbys/etc are there, versus 4th liners and guys on 2-way contracts in the AHL? Their votes are equal.

 

[ps241]

It is my theory that Fehr will prove to be a non factor and that it won't be for lack of talent but lack of focus and passion on his part. has he really reached out to the players? Even the inner circle of core player reps on teams? has he done more than talk about trying to get the troops rallied??? I don't think the players will get their act together in time for the next round and the only hill they will die on is they would all walk if the owners tried to touch "guaranteed" contracts. short of that i think it will all be on the table and i look for them agreeing on controlling second contracts, and also being flexible on the cap floor (why would they care if they get 57% of the revenue). the good news for the players is i don't think they will need to have their act completely together.

Now to the owners, i have no idea??? Does Gary have the collective will to get phase two done now and begin to ratchet down the 57% revenue to the players while forcing more revenue from the have to the have not owners? Is there any appetite for the approach of players and big markets giving more to prop up the (alleged failing markets)?? I kind of don't think so. i have no idea if the owners are still galvanized around a "common" cause this time. if not it will have been a one and done as the power rolls back to the big market boys and watch for the cap floor to vanish and the fans get tossed to the wind while both players and owners spin it saying "it will allow troubled market teams to control costs while they build through the draft to get a winner on the ice that can drive business" yada yada......it is the low hanging fruit that the players and most owners would likely agree on so it comes down to how strong the NHL believes in parity and how much "hand" Gary still has to chase the dream, if in fact, that will even be his marching orders?

i actually think if you like parity the current system has worked pretty well for the fans so far with allot of teams competing for a playoff spot right up to the last week. watching how tight about 10 teams were in the west last year was really interesting and I for one think It will be a shame to blow it up (one mans opinion)

i highly doubt we will see the drama like last time when we had a huge "over our dead body issue" (hard cap) or like the NBA will be going through this year......i look for something closer to the feel of the NFL this spring and early summer! allot of posturing but no lost games or revenues with more cost control options for smaller revenue teams