Primeau upset Goodenow with his contract

[Sammy*]

As he should be. As most of us are. I think the owners ultimately are right in this brouhaha and ultimately will win it, but that said, there's nothing immoral, greedy or inappropriate about the players and the unions trying to get every penny they can. Only stupidity for refusing to see the writing on the wall.

True enough. I only wish the owners would have been allowed to employ the same tactics as the Union.

 

[Bruwinz37]

This is laughable. Look at the article you posted. Do the math yourself. The guy who wrote it said 75% because that is what the league says, and he's too lazy to do any real research.

Actually, becuase I know some here won't do it themselves, here is the math from that article:

Revenue: $2 billion
Average payroll: 41.6 million
Total Payroll: (41.6 million*30) $1.25 billion
% of revenue used for player salary: (1250000000/2000000000) 62.5%

Does that 41.6m include payroll tax, insurance, per diems, and travel expenses? I dont think it does...what do you think?

 

[Bruwinz37]

If the product is so horrible, why do you care? Watch something that you find more entertaining and to hell with the NHL.

How old are you, three? This is the best you could come up with? I said the product is not good enough to warrant the money they make. That says nothing of how *I* feel about the sport but it speaks more to the fact that the sport is not generating new fan interest which in turn slows increases in revenue. Combine this with salaries escalating and you have the problem. If you watched hockey in the 80's and early 90's it would be obvious to you that the league is not where it should be. The players are the product, they have to bear some of the brunt.

But oh well. With decent revenue sharing, 5-7 would no longer be able to throw off the curve.

MLB says hi.

Now it's the owners turn and then maybe we can get a decent CBA in place that works for everybody, not just the 10 poorest teams.

I agree the NHL needs to budge a little, but I am also in tune with reality and the reality is that there is going to be a cap so the players better get used to that idea.

I think the owners would be wise to look into a stiff tax penalty and other terms that would make it effectively be a cap without calling it one. I also would agree that the owners caused this mess, but does that mean they have to assume an infinite amount of financial ruin because of it? As a hockey fan I see that something drastic needs to be done. I mean there isnt even any TV money. The fan base isnt growing, and this labor stoppage is going to kill a whole season. The players, IMO, are cutting their noses to spite their face. It is not out of the realm of possibility that the league as it is constituted now is done for good.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

How old are you, three? This is the best you could come up with? I said the product is not good enough to warrant the money they make. That says nothing of how *I* feel about the sport but it speaks more to the fact that the sport is not generating new fan interest which in turn slows increases in revenue. Combine this with salaries escalating and you have the problem. If you watched hockey in the 80's and early 90's it would be obvious to you that the league is not where it should be. The players are the product, they have to bear some of the brunt.

36. I've been watching and playing organized hockey since the 70's. The problem with the game isn't the players. They are amazing athletes. Right now players are faster, bigger, stronger and more skilled than ever. The problem isn't the players. The problem is over expansion, coaching staffs, poor enforcement of the rules, and small ice surfaces amongst other problems. If the players don't play within these constraints, they don't get to play. The enjoyment factor of the NHL has been on a steady decline since Bettman took over. Coincedence?

MLB says hi.

Local TV revenues, which give teams like the Mets, Dodgers, Yanks and Sox a huge edge, aren't shared.

 

[Bruwinz37]

36. I've been watching and playing organized hockey since the 70's. The problem with the game isn't the players. They are amazing athletes. Right now players are faster, bigger, stronger and more skilled than ever. The problem isn't the players. The problem is over expansion, coaching staffs, poor enforcement of the rules, and small ice surfaces amongst other problems. If the players don't play within these constraints, they don't get to play. The enjoyment factor of the NHL has been on a steady decline since Bettman took over. Coincedence?

Well good, more 36 year old type responses are appreciated.

I agree with you on the reasons why the quality of play is going down in the NHL, but at the end of the day it is the players playing the game. Because it expanded 6 teams that means there is 20% of the guys who are members of the union and they are responsible (at least in part) to the product that goes out there. It really isnt even about the product though. It simply starts and ends with the league not gaining popularity in the majority of the US.

I agree with you that Bettman is a big part of the reason why this league is in perils. I have never disputed that. He is AWFUL for the game, but if this becomes a blame game then nothing will ever get resolved. I loathe Bettman, but he is a mouthpiece for the owners who are losing millions and if they need economic systems put in place in order to survive (not thrive) then I will agree with their stance (aside from all other general logic that tells you the league is in trouble).

 

[hockeytown9321]

Does that 41.6m include payroll tax, insurance, per diems, and travel expenses? I dont think it does...what do you think?

I don't know what you mean by payroll tax, but the other ones you listed aren't. But those costs aren't going to go down under any system (insurance might go down a smidge), and they should not be included when talking about player salary. To do so is incorrect and misleading.

 

[Bruwinz37]

I don't know what you mean by payroll tax, but the other ones you listed aren't. But those costs aren't going to go down under any system (insurance might go down a smidge), and they should not be included when talking about player salary. To do so is incorrect and misleading.

Well maybe you should brush up on how much owners pay in payroll taxes and whether they go up or down before you comment whether they can go up or down instead of telling people how it is. Furthemore the point isnt if they will go down or not under a new system, the point is YOUR # didnt take any of this into account therefore you come up with your percentage. Player costs take into account ALL of this. Stop saying salaries and say player costs, because that is the issue.......salary just happens to make up the majority of player costs.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Well maybe you should brush up on how much owners pay in payroll taxes .

you mean to the govt ? the owners dont pay it, they take it off the players cheques.

dr

 

[Sammy*]

you mean to the govt ? the owners dont pay it, they take it off the players cheques.

dr

Man, I hate it when a pro NHLPA guy corrects an obviously incorrect statement made by the side of good.

 

[CarlRacki]

you mean to the govt ? the owners dont pay it, they take it off the players cheques.

dr

Not entirely. In the U.S., at least, employers are required to match their employees' contributions to Social Security and Medicare. SS tax is about 6.2 percent and Medicare is about 1.5 percent. So, when you're dealing with an average salary of $1.8 million, that's almost $139,000 per year per player. For a 25-man roster, that's nearly $3.5 million a year. Not huge, but not chump change either.
Math isn't my strong suit, so if my numbers are off, feel free to correct me.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Not entirely. In the U.S., at least, employers are required to match their employees' contributions to Social Security and Medicare. SS tax is about 6.2 percent and Medicare is about 1.5 percent. So, when you're dealing with an average salary of $1.8 million, that's almost $139,000 per year per player. For a 25-man roster, that's nearly $3.5 million a year. Not huge, but not chump change either.
Math isn't my strong suit, so if my numbers are off, feel free to correct me.

but those arent payroll taxes... those ar social benefit contributions. the owner is not paying anything called "payroll tax". unless there is some kooky thing like this in the USA that I am unaware of.

dr

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Man, I hate it when a pro NHLPA guy corrects an obviously incorrect statement made by the side of good.

the side of the good ? to each his own. i wouldnt call myself pro PA, i just happen to believe the owners have motives that i dont care much to support.

dr

 

[shveik]

Not entirely. In the U.S., at least, employers are required to match their employees' contributions to Social Security and Medicare. SS tax is about 6.2 percent and Medicare is about 1.5 percent. So, when you're dealing with an average salary of $1.8 million, that's almost $139,000 per year per player. For a 25-man roster, that's nearly $3.5 million a year. Not huge, but not chump change either.
Math isn't my strong suit, so if my numbers are off, feel free to correct me.

Ok, I will

The SS and Medicare tax are only applied to the first 90K of the earnings. So, no matter how much you earn, you won't pay more than roughly 7K a year (with the same amount contributed by the employer).

 

[Pepper]

This is laughable. Look at the article you posted. Do the math yourself. The guy who wrote it said 75% because that is what the league says, and he's too lazy to do any real research.

Actually, becuase I know some here won't do it themselves, here is the math from that article:

Revenue: $2 billion
Average payroll: 41.6 million
Total Payroll: (41.6 million*30) $1.25 billion
% of revenue used for player salary: (1250000000/2000000000) 62.5%

And you convienently forget that "total payroll" is not the same as "player costs".

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Step back and look at the big picture. This type of nonsense is not good for the overall health of the game. Who knows how many players do what he says? It causes crazy inflation of salaries and on the player's end it often times hurts their performance for that particular season. How many other players take his advice and hold out for more than a team can afford and end up having to move somewhere else? Goodenow is looking for one thing, to drive up salaries. Not for the overall health of the game, not for the overall happiness of the players, just making a buck. If he wants to do this at the expense of a sport we love than any criticism he gets from people who love hockey is deserved whether you like it or not.

Big Picture?

No. I'm not talking about the big picture.
Unlike you Goodenow-crazed whackos, I'm trying to stick to thread at hand.
The guy took a cheap shot at Goodenow.
Heading into the CBA, it was Goodenow's job to prevent a salary cap.
So during Primeau's negotiations, he let Primeau know that union doesn't want to make it look like players are preparing for a salary cap.

If you and your pals want to get all melodramatic about, we'll see if HF will creat a sub-board for you.
"Business of Hockey -- For Oprah Fans"

 

[Bruwinz37]

but those arent payroll taxes... those ar social benefit contributions. the owner is not paying anything called "payroll tax". unless there is some kooky thing like this in the USA that I am unaware of.

dr

It is sometimes reffered to as payroll taxes. It is a tax assesed on the owner for FICA taxes where the owner matches the employee's contribution. Call it whatever you want, but they still have to pay it. Only a person with such a slanted agenda such as yours would get in a battle of semantics when something doesnt support your view.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Not entirely. In the U.S., at least, employers are required to match their employees' contributions to Social Security and Medicare. SS tax is about 6.2 percent and Medicare is about 1.5 percent. So, when you're dealing with an average salary of $1.8 million, that's almost $139,000 per year per player. For a 25-man roster, that's nearly $3.5 million a year. Not huge, but not chump change either.
Math isn't my strong suit, so if my numbers are off, feel free to correct me.

So your calling a federal tax a "player cost"

By that reasoning, shouldn't the players union deduct income tax from their salaries and say they were only 40 percent of the NHL's costs.

 

[Bruwinz37]

Big Picture?

No. I'm not talking about the big picture.
Unlike you Goodenow-crazed whackos, I'm trying to stick to thread at hand.
The guy took a cheap shot at Goodenow.
Heading into the CBA, it was Goodenow's job to prevent a salary cap.
So during Primeau's negotiations, he let Primeau know that union doesn't want to make it look like players are preparing for a salary cap.

If you and your pals want to get all melodramatic about, we'll see if HF will creat a sub-board for you.
"Business of Hockey -- For Oprah Fans"

Wow, when did it become the job of the mods to resort to namecalling?

Like I said, look at the big picture. It is not only his job to prevent a cap, it is his job to ensure the future of jobs in the NHL. Whether or not he is doing this or not remains to be seen. Certainly more than a couple of players have voiced their frustration in the media and I am sure there is a growing silent majority.

You are right, though, Goodenow is preventing a cap......at all costs, good or bad for the union.

Sorry if some of us know how to think long term.

 

[Bruwinz37]

So your calling a federal tax a "player cost"

By that reasoning, shouldn't the players union deduct income tax from their salaries and say they were only 40 percent of the NHL's costs.

Yea, thats what they should do.........

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

I find it entertaining that the teams with ter most power right now are the ones who contribute the least to the league. Its really a shame when Peter Karmanos' situation is of greater value to Bettman than Mike Ilitch's.

Karmanos is the poster boy for the owners ineptitude.
He buys a team in Hartford.
Decides to move it.
He picks Carolina, of all the places in North America.
He offers RFA Sergei Fedorov a contract that is unheard of at the time, a contract worth $5 to $6 M a year, but written in a way to cost Mike Illitch $20Million in the first year if he wanted to match the deal.
And now he's arm in arn with bettman.

 

[Bruwinz37]

Karmanos is the poster boy for the owners ineptitude.
He buys a team in Hartford.
Decides to move it.
He picks Carolina, of all the places in North America.
He offers RFA Sergei Fedorov a contract that is unheard of at the time, a contract worth $5 to $6 M a year, but written in a way to cost Mike Illitch $20Million in the first year if he wanted to match the deal.
And now he's arm in arn with bettman.

I dont think anyone is arguing that this isnt the owners fault. It clearly is. That doesnt mean that the game goes on the road it is on because the owners made a big mistake. They are fixing it because there is a lot of people losing a lot of money. Who cares whose fault it is?

 

[Slats432]

My problem is with the NHLPA's "influence" on the contracts. They say they want a free market and then get pissed every time a player signs outside what "they" think is market value.

If it were the owners getting together and deciding what "market value" was collectively, it is collusion.

Which, when I bring up one of the NHL's proposals was to negotiate all the player contracts, it is the same thing that the NHLPA does now.(Which wasn't a salary cap)

If the players didn't negotiate each contract as a group of 750 players constantly trying to push the bar up for each other, I would be more inclined to live with a free(r) market.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Does that 41.6m include payroll tax, insurance, per diems, and travel expenses? I dont think it does...what do you think?

No it doesn't, just like the NFL and NBA. Salaries are set based on revenue, not player cost. Bettman has done a good job of letting people confuse the two. And Goodenow has done a poor job explaining the two.

In terms of players salaries the NHL is on par with the NBA and NFL in terms of percentage of revenue going to players SALARIES. We dont know is what the percentage of revenue to players COST because unlike the NHL the owners aren't crying about that.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

..., but if this becomes a blame game then nothing will ever get resolved.

This entire thread has been about laying blame. I'm just trying to add some balance. Until hockey people run the NHL, like Dryden or Burke, the game will continue it's decline IMO.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Stop saying salaries and say player costs, because that is the issue.......salary just happens to make up the majority of player costs.

So why has Bettman proposed a system where the players are guaranteed over half the legue's revenue in SALARY? Shouldn't they be around 40-45% if they want to get the total "player costs" down to 55%?

The NFL has a specific percentage allocated for player salary, and nothing else. That number is very close to the current number in the NHL. If you took all of the other "player costs" in the NFL that do not count toward the player's %, you would get something similar to what the NHL says.

And exactly how is a salary cap going to reduce all of those non salary costs?