Players only want linkage when revenues go up?

[trahans99]

The players don't want linkage, but then they say they want there salaries to grow w/ the industry. Saskin says over the next 6 years as the industry grows so should the players salaries.... but THE INDUSTRY WILL BE STARTING AT 25-50% less than 03-04. This just shows that NHLPA will accept linkage, Bettman better go for linkage again!

Click to read more...

 

[Pavel]

I thought that was funny myself. Somewhat hypocritical don't you think Ted.

 

[IslesRule]

I want my cake and eat it too!

 

[ChiHawks468]

The players don't want linkage, but then they say they want there salaries to grow w/ the industry. Saskin says over the next 6 years as the industry grows so should the players salaries.... but THE INDUSTRY WILL BE STARTING AT 25-50% less than 03-04. This just shows that NHLPA will accept linkage, Bettman better go for linkage again!

That's right. Thye want a partnership where they reap the rewards of the league's success but let it all fall on the owners if there are any setbacks. My kinda partner.

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

http://www.nhlpa.com/Content/Feature.asp?contentId=3431



2) While we were told earlier in the week that the NHL's revenue sharing plan would not decrease over time, the plan they revealed today could decrease significantly over the term of the agreement.


Just one further example of the greed of these ingrates who are for the most part unemployable in the real world.

 

[HockeyCritter]

That's what I found so laughable about the PA's stance . . . . they claim they don't want linkage because they don't "trust" the owners' revenue figures, yet they'll be perfectly willing to trust those numbers when it comes to increasing their share of the pie.

 

[NYFAN]

That's what I found so laughable about the PA's stance . . . . they claim they don't want linkage because they don't "trust" the owners' revenue figures, yet they'll be perfectly willing to trust those numbers when it comes to increasing their share of the pie.

What is so hard to understand? They are saying that if revenue goes up , their cap should go up. Why should it stay fixed at 42 mil based on 2 billion in revenue, if revenue is up at say 3.2 billion at the end of the agreement. The cap should increase, it doesn't mean a team has to have payroll up to the limit! Do you work ? Don't you get raises?

 

[CarlRacki]

What is so hard to understand? They are saying that if revenue goes up , their cap should go up. Why should it stay fixed at 42 mil based on 2 billion in revenue, if revenue is up at say 3.2 billion at the end of the agreement. The cap should increase, it doesn't mean a team has to have payroll up to the limit! Do you work ? Don't you get raises?

It's very simple, really. The players want to share in the benefit if revenues go up, but are unwilling to share in the losses if revenues decline.
Do you work? If your company starts losing million of dollars would it a) continue to give raises or b) conduct layoffs, place a freeze on hiring and cut salaries?

 

[IslesRule]

What is so hard to understand? They are saying that if revenue goes up , their cap should go up. Why should it stay fixed at 42 mil based on 2 billion in revenue, if revenue is up at say 3.2 billion at the end of the agreement. The cap should increase, it doesn't mean a team has to have payroll up to the limit! Do you work ? Don't you get raises?

But in the case revenues go down, there is no down side. Undersatnd this, the NFL, the most sucessfull sports league on the planet has a hard cap, that is tied directly to revenues. The NFL's cap last year was $80 million per team, and they have 45 players on each team, and at least 24 players who are starters. The revenues in the NFL are around $5.5 billion. And they have NO GUARANTEED CONTRACTS. Do the math, how can the NHL agree to a cap that is not tied to revenues when they are paying out more in salaries then the most sucessfull sports business on the planet. The players were nuts not to take the latest offer, they will now get a cap based on linkage that will be in the low $30's.

 

[ChiHawks468]

It's very simply, really. The players want to share in the benefit if revenues go up, but are unwilling to share in the losses if revenues decline.
Do you work? If your company starts losing million of dollars would it a) continue to give raises or b) conduct layoffs, place a freeze on hiring and cut salaries?

BINGO! We have a winner! Tell'm what he's won John!

 

[NYFAN]

It's very simply, really. The players want to share in the benefit if revenues go up, but are unwilling to share in the losses if revenues decline.
Do you work? If your company starts losing million of dollars would it a) continue to give raises or b) conduct layoffs, place a freeze on hiring and cut salaries?

You just opened up pandoras box! I work for a MAJOR beverage company,with much deeper pockets than the NHL. Not only are they unwilling to share their profit, they claim they are losing money constantly, a total fabrication. I am lucky I have a union to protect my job. Even so ,I still face winter layoffs every year, while the profit the company makes goes up every year. They are just as creative with their books as the NHL owners, and can justify their position on paper. They can do nothing about my pay rate though as that is negotiated in contract talks, so instead they play the layoff game. If they lose money at all, it is through poor management and poor treatment of their customers, its their problem not mine. I will NEVER work at this job for less money than I already get, especially knowing the manipulation of numbers that goes on. I get a negotiated contract that has annual increases, and thats the way it is. There is a minimum wage law for a reason, there should be a minimum cap in hockey and it SHOULD GO UP as revenue increases, not as a percentage, but as a fixed number. In other words 55% of 2 Billion =42 mil, 55% of 3.5 billion revenue =64.2 mil.

 

[kdb209]

What is so hard to understand? They are saying that if revenue goes up , their cap should go up. Why should it stay fixed at 42 mil based on 2 billion in revenue, if revenue is up at say 3.2 billion at the end of the agreement. The cap should increase, it doesn't mean a team has to have payroll up to the limit! Do you work ? Don't you get raises?

But revenue goes up from where?

If the current NHLPA on cap linkage is anything like theire original clause #7 (and based on Saskin's statements, I have no reason to beleive it is not), then the baseline is next year when revenues may very well be down 30%. If the revenue just recovers to pre-lockout levels, then that $42M cap number comes to almost $60M at the end, with no real increase in revenues.

 

[NYFAN]

No one in those negotiations would be stupid enough not to recognize that fact, and I am sure some language would have been inserted that escalation linked to revenue would only occur after the league became profitable over and above the level of the 2004 season, and would remain constant until that time!

 

[wazee]

No one in those negotiations would be stupid enough not to recognize that fact, and I am sure some language would have been inserted that escalation linked to revenue would only occur after the league became profitable over and above the level of the 2004 season, and would remain constant until that time!

Perhaps. But that is NOT what the NHLPA offered. The NHLPA's clause #7 specifically stated the baseline would be the 2005-2006 season. It was a 'gotcha' clause, designed to increase the salary cap dramatically over the years of the CBA. Sure, it was negotiable...but, as offered, it was as bad for the NHL as the 110% QOs and the inflationary arbitration rules in the last CBA.

 

[txomisc]

If the NHL wants positive-only linkage, the cap is going to need to start out very low.

 

[NYFAN]

Perhaps. But that is NOT what the NHLPA offered. The NHLPA's clause #7 specifically stated the baseline would be the 2005-2006 season. It was a 'gotcha' clause, designed to increase the salary cap dramatically over the years of the CBA. Sure, it was negotiable...but, as offered, it was as bad for the NHL as the 110% QOs and the inflationary arbitration rules in the last CBA.

Wazee, the nature of negotiations is to come in with more than you expect to get, then whittle it down to something both sides can live with. I'm sure that the PA would have worked with that for say..... lowering the age a player becomes a free agent.

 

[Crows*]

THE PA has such a ridiculous stance of hypocrisy in this dispute.

AS well as the hypocrisy of playing in leagues with caps (UHL)

Well on the other hand I don't blame them for playing in other capped leagues and moving players off the roster.... THAT'S THE ONLY JOB THEY CAN GET in this world.

 

[Member 23807]

I'm glad to see that everyone is finally starting to realize that the players, despite their concessions, have assumed ZERO risk in any of the offers they have tabled. They want to reap the rewards of any upside the league may experience in the years ahead but should things falter, they want no part of it.

Anyone else tired of listening to Glenn Healy on TSN and Nick Kypreos on Sportsnet? I was so happy to see Brian Burke put Healy in his place. I wrote an editorial on my blog site a few days ago precisely about how the players need to assume some risk if a true partnership were to be created but I do not see that happening at all.

PJStyles
http://hockeyinsight.blogspot.com

 

[NYFAN]

THE PA has such a ridiculous stance of hypocrisy in this dispute.

AS well as the hypocrisy of playing in leagues with caps (UHL)

Well on the other hand I don't blame them for playing in other capped leagues and moving players off the roster.... THAT'S THE ONLY JOB THEY CAN GET in this world.

Crows, I can understand your hostility toward players for playing overseas, but I happen to disagree. These players didn't vote to strike, management told them they were locked out, go play somewhere else until we reach a labor agreement, cause you wont be playing or practicing here!

 

[NYFAN]

I'm glad to see that everyone is finally starting to realize that the players, despite their concessions, have assumed ZERO risk in any of the offers they have tabled. They want to reap the rewards of any upside the league may experience in the years ahead but should things falter, they want no part of it.

Anyone else tired of listening to Glenn Healy on TSN and Nick Kypreos on Sportsnet? I was so happy to see Brian Burke put Healy in his place. I wrote an editorial on my blog site a few days ago precisely about how the players need to assume some risk if a true partnership were to be created but I do not see that happening at all.

PJStyles
http://hockeyinsight.blogspot.com

What the heck partnership are you talking about? These owners won't even share more than 5% of revenue amongst themselves. Get a grip pal!

 

[Member 23807]

What the heck partnership are you talking about? These owners won't even share more than 5% of revenue amongst themselves. Get a grip pal!

Last time I checked owners purchased a franchise in the NHL to make money and not to share their revenues with other franchisees. I'm not saying I don't want to see revenue sharing, because I do feel that it should be an integral part of any offer. However, just because the owners do not want to share the profits among themselves that shouldn't prevent the NHLPA and the NHL form forming a partnership where they each share some of the risk.

Your comments are precisely why I think the NHLPA has mishandled the entire negotiations. They have done nothing but attack the NHL and its owners instead of trying to work towards a partnership agreement. The NHL had no choice but to reject the offers the players put on the table since they would have continued to lose money. This isn't about breaking the union, this is about putting the NHL on solid financial footing.

Sure the owners and general managers are the cause of much of the financial troubles throughout the NHL over the past 10 years, but the players have benefited tremendously from this over that time period and it's not time to even the playing field and form a partnership. It's amusing that the players only want a partnership should revenues rise - that says a lot about what their motivation is.

PJStyles
http://hockeyinsight.blogspot.com

 

[NYFAN]

Last time I checked owners purchased a franchise in the NHL to make money and not to share their revenues with other franchisees. I'm not saying I don't want to see revenue sharing, because I do feel that it should be an integral part of any offer. However, just because the owners do not want to share the profits among themselves that shouldn't prevent the NHLPA and the NHL form forming a partnership where they each share some of the risk.

Your comments are precisely why I think the NHLPA has mishandled the entire negotiations. They have done nothing but attack the NHL and its owners instead of trying to work towards a partnership agreement. The NHL had no choice but to reject the offers the players put on the table since they would have continued to lose money. This isn't about breaking the union, this is about putting the NHL on solid financial footing.

Sure the owners and general managers are the cause of much of the financial troubles throughout the NHL over the past 10 years, but the players have benefited tremendously from this over that time period and it's not time to even the playing field and form a partnership. It's amusing that the players only want a partnership should revenues rise - that says a lot about what their motivation is.

PJStyles
http://hockeyinsight.blogspot.com

And the owners haven't profited from the last 10 years! Lets not forget the Leavit report said the N. Y. Rangers lost over 40 million dollars last season. That is more hogwash than I have time to listen to! What owner ever lost his livelihood blowing out his knee, or from repeated head trauma. The players absorb all the risk healthwise, and they need to absorb some of ownerships risk as well ? I'm sorry but I seriously disagree with your position. These players don't need to absorb the same risk as ownership, any more than you or I do at our jobs. Things are bad this year, oh well no raise! That is as far as it should ever go!

 

[Member 23807]

And the owners haven't profited from the last 10 years! Lets not forget the Leavit report said the N. Y. Rangers lost over 40 million dollars last season. That is more hogwash than I have time to listen to! What owner ever lost his livelihood blowing out his knee, or from repeated head trauma. The players absorb all the risk healthwise, and they need to absorb some of ownerships risk as well ? I'm sorry but I seriously disagree with your position. These players don't need to absorb the same risk as ownership, any more than you or I do at our jobs. Things are bad this year, oh well no raise! That is as far as it should ever go!

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't we as average citizens faced with the risk of cut-backs in our pay. For example, Air Canada who went through bankruptcy protection had to get all of their employees including pilots to take a significant wage cut. I can assure you that a company like Air Canada will know going forward what % of their revenues/profits are paid out in the form of salaries, does the NHL have that same benefit? Absolutely not.

The bottom line is that this is a business. I'm not opposed to the owners making money nor am I opposed to the players making money. It's about finding an agreement where both parties can make money without killing the other. Tell me something, why can't the players just agree on a % of revenues? You say it's because of mistrust over the reported revenues - then why doesn't the NHLPA take up the leagues offer to hire an independent 3rd party jointly chosen by the NHLPA or the NHL to audit the books? Why has the NHLPA refused to look at every team's books even though the offer has been on the table for several years now? The reason is because if the NHLPA did look through the books and find out that the NHL is in fact losing money, their entire argument would be dead in the water.

All I want is for there to be an agreement between both parties where some level of risk is shared. Not one more than the other but shared. This is a reality in any business. You talk about injuries for players but similar to regular workers, they have insurance that covers their salary during those periods of time. Nevertheless, I give the players full credit because they are able to do something that a very small % of the popuplation are able to do and that is play hockey at a really high level, but does that mean they should be entitled to whatever % of revenues they wish? I think not.

PJStyles
http://hockeyinsight.blogspot.com

 

[NYFAN]

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't we as average citizens faced with the risk of cut-backs in our pay. For example, Air Canada who went through bankruptcy protection had to get all of their employees including pilots to take a significant wage cut. I can assure you that a company like Air Canada will know going forward what % of their revenues/profits are paid out in the form of salaries, does the NHL have that same benefit? Absolutely not.

The bottom line is that this is a business. I'm not opposed to the owners making money nor am I opposed to the players making money. It's about finding an agreement where both parties can make money without killing the other. Tell me something, why can't the players just agree on a % of revenues? You say it's because of mistrust over the reported revenues - then why doesn't the NHLPA take up the leagues offer to hire an independent 3rd party jointly chosen by the NHLPA or the NHL to audit the books? Why has the NHLPA refused to look at every team's books even though the offer has been on the table for several years now? The reason is because if the NHLPA did look through the books and find out that the NHL is in fact losing money, their entire argument would be dead in the water.

All I want is for there to be an agreement between both parties where some level of risk is shared. Not one more than the other but shared. This is a reality in any business. You talk about injuries for players but similar to regular workers, they have insurance that covers their salary during those periods of time. Nevertheless, I give the players full credit because they are able to do something that a very small % of the popuplation are able to do and that is play hockey at a really high level, but does that mean they should be entitled to whatever % of revenues they wish? I think not.

PJStyles
http://hockeyinsight.blogspot.com

I believe a 24% rollback of salaries was offered and accepted, which would have saved the owners over 500 million dollars in the first year. That was a good offer, and the reason why I think that the cap should either remain at 42 million, or go up accordigly as revenue does at the same percentage. To include the following, salary cap will increase at same percentage, once revenue exceeds 2004 level, but remain constant at 42 million in all other circumstances, until expiration of CBA.

 

[Member 23807]

I believe a 24% rollback of salaries was offered and accepted, which would have saved the owners over 500 million dollars in the first year. That was a good offer, and the reason why I think that the cap should either remain at 42 million, or go up accordigly as revenue does at the same percentage.

Listen, I definitely do not dispute the fact that a 24% cut in salaries is significant. My only beef with the NHLPA at this point is that all along they didn't want linkage to revenues and yet now they refuse to look at any offer where there is no linkage between increased revenues and the salary cap. I mean make up your mind - you either want a salary cap system that is static or you want a linkage system and if you agree to a system where salaries are linked to revenues, it needs to work both ways, not just when it favors them.

I can assure you that if a business started losing money, it would start laying off some employees. Unfortunately, a team still needs to ice a full roster and they do not have that luxury.

PJStyles