Players/NHLPA risking 40% of their salary by not getting a deal done now

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by eye, Nov 12, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. eye

    eye Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    around the 49th para
    Home Page:
    I honestly believe the NHL will soon take legal action to shut down the NHLPA and start NHL2 with an imposed CBA that will cut players slaries by 40 percent or more plus reduced benefits and much lower entry level contracts. They have attempted to get a deal done now for over 5 years without any significant progress which sets them up for a good legal defense. Many believe that Players and Goodenow have a window of opportunity to get a deal done between now and December 1st or at least show an honest attempt to meet the NHL's requirement towards a cost certainty - revenue sharing system that maintains their current guaranteed contracts or risk losing it all and it will come with very little warning. More and more fans now want the NHLPA to be shutdown with a new agreement in place that can actually reduce the costs of tickets to games. Stay tuned. :yo: :handclap:
     
  2. SuperUnknown

    SuperUnknown Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    4,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Don't kid yourself too much. Ticket prices aren't tied to salaries.
     
  3. dawgbone

    dawgbone Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2002
    Messages:
    21,104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, but GM's and teams will be a lot more accountable in a lot of areas, and it's one thing to spend $125 on a team that isn't doing well, but has at least put the effort forth in terms of a high payroll, and quite another to see the team lining it's pockets with your money while the team sucks.

    You'll get away with a $200 ticket if you go after and sign UFA's and put some big names in your lineup, and the fans see the money is going towards the team on the ice.

    You won't get away with it if the team is struggling on the ice, and not performing (which will result in a lower ticket price).
     
  4. SuperUnknown

    SuperUnknown Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    4,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Price fixing is an elaborated economical calculation. It depends on the demand and its elasticity. Since demand will probably be affected by the lockout, ticket prices will probably tumble, but it's not related to the salaries paid out.
     
  5. FLYLine27*

    FLYLine27* BUCH

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Messages:
    42,410
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    PO
    Location:
    NY
    YAY! I Cant wait till the crappy replacement players come in! It will be so EXCITING!!! NOT. If they do bring them in the the ticket prices are more then 20 bucks then thats a RIP cuz the AHL prices are like 15 bucks. So SCREW U NHL and Bettman may u ROT IN AHELL YOU GREEDY FATSO. Him and his buttbuddys are the only ones stillracking in all the money so he doesnt give a **** how long this goes on.
     
  6. YellHockey*

    YellHockey* Guest

    Are you sure you don't mean price setting? The owners don't really need to worry about price fixing since they have a monopoly on their products.
     
  7. SuperUnknown

    SuperUnknown Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    4,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Yep sorry I meant price setting. Just a note though: I wouldn't really call the NHL a monopoly, since they compete with other entertainment forms and there are other hockey leagues out there in North America (and potential competition like the WHL).
     
  8. gary69

    gary69 Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,546
    Likes Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Occupation:
    CEO, real estate
    Location:
    Then and there
    For sure NHL is a monopoly (as most of the N.A. sports leagues are) as far as sports go, at least if you compare them to e.g. free market European soccer or hockey leagues, where relegation/promotion exists every season.

    Another question alltogether is, whether that kind of monopoly is the best way to run things in the best hockey league in N.A.
     
  9. SuperUnknown

    SuperUnknown Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    4,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Technically they are a monopoly in N.A. because they generate the majority of hockey revenues. However, their monopoly isn't law enforced and there could be another league taking their place (or growing).
     
  10. :shakehead
     
  11. YellHockey*

    YellHockey* Guest

    It's a natural monopoly due to barriers to entry.
     
  12. djhn579

    djhn579 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY
    If you use that as your definition of monopoly, then every corporation in the world is a monopoly. Every corporation has barriers to employment. Interviews, intelligence tests, drug tests, health tests...

    The NHL is a league, they allow teams to join the league and they control the number of players allowed to enter the league. They do not prevent any other hockey league from starting up and competing with the NHL. If they did that, they would have a monopoly and would be in court pretty quickly.
     
  13. YellHockey*

    YellHockey* Guest

    What does employment (or interviews or tests) have to do with a monopoly?

    The NHL is a natural monopoly because a rival league would have to get the infrastructure, such as rinks, tv deals, sponsors,etc, in place to lure away enough top players to compete with the NHL but they need the top players before they can get the infrastructure in place.
     
  14. djhn579

    djhn579 Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tonawanda, NY
    But, it can be done. The NHL is only in 30 of the largest cities in N.A. The large cities should have arenas that are capable of supporting a start up hockey league. Once it gets going, they will be able to compete for leases against the NHL teams or they can build their own arenas with gov't support just like the NHL did.

    Just because something would be difficult to do, and need to be planned properly, it does not make the existing league a monopoly.
     
  15. Johnnybegood13

    Johnnybegood13 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Messages:
    7,821
    Likes Received:
    209
    Trophy Points:
    157
    Good evening Mr.Goodenow! ;)
     
  16. YellHockey*

    YellHockey* Guest

    No. They are in the 30 best hockey markets.

    Why should they? What city has built a rink without a tenant? What potential rinks could a startup franchise use?

    How is an upstart league going to convince a city to build them a rink without any players signed? And if they can't convince cities to build them rinks they are at a competitive disadvantage with the NHL from the start.

    And how is the league going to sign any players if they don't have any rinks?


    No it is a monopoly because it is an extremely expensive industry to enter with significant risk and an upstart league would start out at a competitive disadvantage because of the NHL's ability to get rinks for free.
     
  17. Tom_Benjamin

    Tom_Benjamin Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    I think it is a monopoly until another league actually starts. The fact that it is possible does not make the existing entity any less monopolistic. These are good reasons other leagues haven't started, but don't define whether a monopoly exists.

    The Vancouver Canucks have a monopoly on major league hockey in Vancouver. They are a monopoly because they have no competition and they will have a monopoly until they do have competition.

    Tom
     
  18. CarlRacki

    CarlRacki Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You have an odd definition of monopoly.
    Would it be difficult to start a competing hockey league? Yes. Would it be likely to succeed? No. But that alone does not dictate a monopoly.
    The NHL does not and cannot prevent cities from hosting another league's teams. It does not and cannot prevent professional players and unsigned junior players from signing with another league. It does not and cannot stop a television network from broadcasting games of a competing league. For these reasons, and more, it does not qualify as a monopoly.
     
  19. CarlRacki

    CarlRacki Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Simply not true. The term "monopoly" does not denote a lack of competition. Rather it denotes the lack of possible competition.
    The dictionary definition is: Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service.
    The NHL clearly does not have exclusive control over the selling of professional hockey because a) other leagues exist, though on a smaller scale (i.e. AHL, CHL, ECHL, etc.) and b) the NHL possesses no means by which it could block a start-up league which would challenge its position..
     
  20. thinkwild

    thinkwild Veni Vidi Toga

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    8,903
    Likes Received:
    178
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Location:
    Ottawa
    OK, the NHL is not a monopoly because other leagues could start. Until then, it operates as a monopoly although it isnt.
     
  21. eye

    eye Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    around the 49th para
    Home Page:
    You seem to be overlooking one thing. NHL players will actually make up a high percentage of the replacement players as they cross the line in big numbers. Most players would vote yes in a secret ballot for playing with a cost certaintly partnership like Bettman and NHL owners want but Goodenow's ego just won't allow him to give into Bettman who would one up him if successful. Goodenow is a fighter and and doens't care if he is right or wrong, whether he does damage to the game or not, whether he is best serving his clients or not and he will go down with a TKO in the 15 th round never to be heard from again. I for one am looking forward to that time because then the game of hockey can move forward.
     
  22. Tom_Benjamin

    Tom_Benjamin Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    What a dreamer. So what are the owners waiting for? Bring it on. I can use the laugh. We can debate whether the Vancouver Canucks are as good as the Vancouver Giants.

    Sure they would. Suddenly the players aren't doing it because they are greedy pigs. They are doing it because they are sheeple without a clue. It's all Goodenow's fault.

    I don't think the partnership thingie flies any more. Nobody goes into a partnership with a madman who doesn't understand the game. Who would ever decide to be Gary Bettman's partner?

    Tom
     
  23. YellHockey*

    YellHockey* Guest

    From economist.com

    When a MONOPOLY occurs because it is more efficient for one firm to serve an entire market than for two or more FIRMS to do so, because of the sort of ECONOMIES OF SCALE available in that market. A common example is water distribution, in which the main cost is laying a network of pipes to deliver water. One firm can do the job at a lower AVERAGE cost per customer than two firms with competing networks of pipes. Monopolies can arise unnaturally by a firm acquiring sole ownership of a resource that is essential to the production of a good or service, or by a government granting a firm the legal right to be the sole producer. Other unnatural monopolies occur when a firm is much more efficient than its rivals for reasons other than economies of scale. Unlike some other sorts of monopoly, natural monopolies have little chance of being driven out of a market by more efficient new entrants. Thus REGULATION of natural monopolies may be needed to protect their captive consumers.

    The NHL had, until the lockout, pretty much ownership of the best players in the world. That's a resource that is essential to the production of major league hockey.
     
  24. SuperUnknown

    SuperUnknown Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    4,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    But whoever plays as a replacement player, it will be the best players available to NA, so it will be the best hockey one can buy. So bring hem on! :p:
     
  25. thinkwild

    thinkwild Veni Vidi Toga

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    8,903
    Likes Received:
    178
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Location:
    Ottawa
    But to be consistent, the NHL isnt one business, its 30. 30 different monopolies pooling as a cartel to claim their protected markets. With monopsony power over their RFAs.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"