Sportsnet: Two companies proposed to buy the NHL in yesterday's meeting

Status
Not open for further replies.

shakes

Pep City
Aug 20, 2003
8,632
239
Visit site
txomisc said:
I don't see why they would still have to negotiate a cap with the NHLPA.

The NHLPA just doesn't "go away" if that happened. They would still have to negotiate with them.


Thunderstruck said:
The NHL just fired a cannon warning shot over the deck of the good ship NHLPA.

They want to get a deal done with the PA, but they have other options, like this one, that are devastating to the PA's power base.

Time to get down to business Bobby and accept the deal you are being offered is significantly better than your other options. In fact, I'm sure the NHL could be convinced to sweeten the non-cap/linkage issues if the PA would finally show a willingness to address the financial issues facing the league.

I don't know what kind of warning shot they or you think they are firing. You don't actually think this is an option do you? An option is replacement players (regardless of the quality, labour restrictions etc), at least its something they could do realistically. Offering 3.5 billion, while the number is staggering, is not viable and I don't even think that half the franchises would be interested. In fact, I'm sure that big market or profitable teams like the Leafs, Avs, Wings, Rangers, Wild etc would NEVER sell their teams. Once those teams were not part of the deal, that 3.5 billion would be significantly reduced, if there was any interest left at all.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
txomisc said:
I don't see why they would still have to negotiate a cap with the NHLPA.

If you want to artificially cap your workers' salaries, you better get them to agree to it in a CBA, otherwise the anti-trust and unfair labor practices show up.
 

likea

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
599
0
gc2005 said:
If you want to artificially cap your workers' salaries, you better get them to agree to it in a CBA, otherwise the anti-trust and unfair labor practices show up.


thats not true, MLS is a prime example of what would happen

the NHLPA would have no power to negotiate a salary cap or floor because the owner...the 1 owner would set a budget for every single team

pro-NHLPA people are always complaining how NHL teams do not set a budget and stick to it, thats all one owner would due

and its not illegal
 

mrhockey123

Guest
This thing keeps getting stranger with each passing day but this is interesting.
It would pretty much neuter if not kill the NHLPA and it would certainly bring costs down.

As for buying a business that is losing money, uhm people make zillions of dollars off that. I think that is exactly what Onex corp (the one who wanted to buy air canada) does. Buy a business in the toilet and fix it up.

The problem is who would decide which players played where?
I mean all 30 teams "need" joe sakic so who would decide where he went?
Would there be contracts tying a player to a team? (like say Joe sakic signs a 3 year deal to play with the Oilers? or would he sign a deal with the NHL and the NHL could decide to move him around?) The latter doesnt sound like a good thing for the players.

THe one problem with this other than the fact there is no chance this will happen (lol) is the players will just leave. Even though they will have no bargaining power officialy with their PA, they can still all walk out on the league and start a new league and run it the way they want.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
mudcrutch79 said:
I think that the problem referred as anti-trust law is that the new owner of the league would effectively be buying a monopoly. In theory right now, teams compete with one another for consumers. In places like NY, where there are three teams, this is undoubtedly true. Were they to be owned by the same entity, the competition would disappear, and the new owners would have less of an interest in competing for consumers. I don't know what the position of the Tribunal in Canada would be, but s. 92 of the Competition Act would make this move subject to review under Canadian law, I believe.

I can't believe that there's any seriousness to this. Not to mention that $3.5 billion would be a bargain price.
The AHL UHL ECHL and other pro hockey leagues operate in NA.

The SEL, RSL....operate in Europe.

The PA has already had over half their membership find work elsewhere.

No monoploy would be formed.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
shakes said:
The NHLPA just doesn't "go away" if that happened. They would still have to negotiate with them.




I don't know what kind of warning shot they or you think they are firing. You don't actually think this is an option do you? An option is replacement players (regardless of the quality, labour restrictions etc), at least its something they could do realistically. Offering 3.5 billion, while the number is staggering, is not viable and I don't even think that half the franchises would be interested. In fact, I'm sure that big market or profitable teams like the Leafs, Avs, Wings, Rangers, Wild etc would NEVER sell their teams. Once those teams were not part of the deal, that 3.5 billion would be significantly reduced, if there was any interest left at all.

The owners could just as readily set up an arms length corperation to operate the league as a central company with franchises.

The owners could agree to accept the payment from these companies in the form of equity shares tied to the ongoing value of their individual franchise.

The message to the PA was clear. Impasse and implementation is not the owners only option. If they want to continue to be unreasonable and hold the league hostage, the owners were just letting them know that they have numerous ways to up the ante and play hardball.
 

mudcrutch79

Registered User
Jul 5, 2003
3,903
0
The Big Smoke
www.mc79hockey.com
Thunderstruck said:
The AHL UHL ECHL and other pro hockey leagues operate in NA.

The SEL, RSL....operate in Europe.

The PA has already had over half their membership find work elsewhere.

No monoploy would be formed.

Unfortunately for those of you who no longer care about rational discussion of this, courts aren't going to be so stupid as to think that such teams as the Motor City Mechanics provide any level of competition for the Detroit Red Wings. Practically speaking, this would be a monopoly. It's as much about the perspective of the consumers as anything else-from a consumer prospective, this new one owner NHL no longer has any incentive to have teams in small markets, or if they do, to put the better players on them. It would make more sense to stack the teams in the big markets to drive TV ratings.

This would be a monopoly.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
likea said:
thats not true, MLS is a prime example of what would happen

the NHLPA would have no power to negotiate a salary cap or floor because the owner...the 1 owner would set a budget for every single team

pro-NHLPA people are always complaining how NHL teams do not set a budget and stick to it, thats all one owner would due

and its not illegal

Thank you for saving me the keystrokes.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
mudcrutch79 said:
Unfortunately for those of you who no longer care about rational discussion of this, courts aren't going to be so stupid as to think that such teams as the Motor City Mechanics provide any level of competition for the Detroit Red Wings. Practically speaking, this would be a monopoly. It's as much about the perspective of the consumers as anything else-from a consumer prospective, this new one owner NHL no longer has any incentive to have teams in small markets, or if they do, to put the better players on them. It would make more sense to stack the teams in the big markets to drive TV ratings.

This would be a monopoly.

Based on what exactly? The pay scale for the players?

Fine, the NHL will only offer equivalent pay to what the players can achieve in the other leagues.

What happens if the WHA forms and then pays a few PA stars comparable money, is that still a monopoly?
 

drbill28

Registered User
Feb 25, 2003
206
0
Pomfret Center, CT
Visit site
gc2005 said:
It's not all doom and gloom for the players. Each team would still have a president and a GM looking out for their own team's best interests. Good luck getting a Sutter to first approve and then defend the Iginla for Ortmeyer trade, they would get crucified by fans everywhere. Free agents would still be in demand by multiple teams and get into bidding wars, except there would be a team-by-team budget, presumably, more or less like a salary cap. They'd still have to negotiate a cap (and probably a floor) with the NHLPA. 29 teams would be pissed if Crosby automatically got assigned to the Rangers "for the good of the league".

It's bizarro world, that's for sure, but it is basically the 100% revenue sharing solution that players seemed to be in favor of.

The point is a GM would have less power than say one in baseball. Having one owner eleiminates competition. An owner in baseball could tell the GM he wants Alex Rodriguez. He still has to negotiate with the other team. Because of their concerns. In a new NHL like this, concern is limited. Say the owner wants Iginla on the Leafs or whatever. He can order both GMs of the teams to make a trade, he could say "You guys have until Tuesday to get Iginla on the Leafs." There'd be nothing illegal about it. It's a regulr business now, not unlike Wal-Mart. A CBA would not legally have to exist between them and the PA. All the PA would be for is workers rights. Players would be hired, not signed. They could make it as much as a regular business as they wanted. You're assuming it's one entity just getting all the money. They can run it however they see fit at that point. If you wanted to maintain bargaining power amoung teams and keep the owner out of it. They owner would have to put in its company laws that it will not interfere in the day-to-day operations of team operations, such as trades. Technically they would have to agree to add free agency. They would have to agree to anything that you come to know as the competitive business aspects of sports. Otherwise it could be. "NHL Team, The Boston Bruins seek goaltender. Must have 5 years experience. Salary: $525,000 Please forward your resume to us." The point is, the rules change. Nothing makes the sports world special from any other business.
 

drbill28

Registered User
Feb 25, 2003
206
0
Pomfret Center, CT
Visit site
mudcrutch79 said:
Unfortunately for those of you who no longer care about rational discussion of this, courts aren't going to be so stupid as to think that such teams as the Motor City Mechanics provide any level of competition for the Detroit Red Wings. Practically speaking, this would be a monopoly. It's as much about the perspective of the consumers as anything else-from a consumer prospective, this new one owner NHL no longer has any incentive to have teams in small markets, or if they do, to put the better players on them. It would make more sense to stack the teams in the big markets to drive TV ratings.

This would be a monopoly.
It's only a monopoly if they don't allow future competitive league to try to get their foot in the door. Ala, Microsoft. You'd need that sort of situation. Otherwise, it's fine.
 

dakota

Registered User
May 18, 2002
1,314
0
Ottawa
Visit site
drbill28 said:
The point is a GM would have less power than say one in baseball. Having one owner eleiminates competition. An owner in baseball could tell the GM he wants Alex Rodriguez. He still has to negotiate with the other team. Because of their concerns. In a new NHL like this, concern is limited. Say the owner wants Iginla on the Leafs or whatever. He can order both GMs of the teams to make a trade, he could say "You guys have until Tuesday to get Iginla on the Leafs." There'd be nothing illegal about it. It's a regulr business now, not unlike Wal-Mart. A CBA would not legally have to exist between them and the PA. All the PA would be for is workers rights. Players would be hired, not signed. They could make it as much as a regular business as they wanted. You're assuming it's one entity just getting all the money. They can run it however they see fit at that point. If you wanted to maintain bargaining power amoung teams and keep the owner out of it. They owner would have to put in its company laws that it will not interfere in the day-to-day operations of team operations, such as trades. Technically they would have to agree to add free agency. They would have to agree to anything that you come to know as the competitive business aspects of sports. Otherwise it could be. "NHL Team, The Boston Bruins seek goaltender. Must have 5 years experience. Salary: $525,000 Please forward your resume to us." The point is, the rules change. Nothing makes the sports world special from any other business.

one nice thing about this too, would be a player could request to play in the city of his choice... close to family friends, similar to the way most peoples jobs work... you can request a transfer to another branch (team) etc., you may not get it but you can have the option which would be nice for the players too.
 

shakes

Pep City
Aug 20, 2003
8,632
239
Visit site
likea said:
thats not true, MLS is a prime example of what would happen

the NHLPA would have no power to negotiate a salary cap or floor because the owner...the 1 owner would set a budget for every single team

pro-NHLPA people are always complaining how NHL teams do not set a budget and stick to it, thats all one owner would due

and its not illegal

The purchase would not be dependent on the NHL reaching agreement with the players on a collective bargaining deal, and a sale would not affect the status of the NHL Players' Association as the bargaining agent for players under U.S. and Canadian labor laws.

really.. that's not what I get from the TSN article.
 

Epsilon

#basta
Oct 26, 2002
48,464
369
South Cackalacky
Thunderstruck said:
The AHL UHL ECHL and other pro hockey leagues operate in NA.

The SEL, RSL....operate in Europe.

The PA has already had over half their membership find work elsewhere.

No monoploy would be formed.

You obviously have no clue as to how US antitrust law works.

Just to make things simple, a monopoly does NOT mean 100% market share.

Every major corporate merger of the past several years (AOL/TW being the most obvious example) has faced rigorous investigation by the US DoJ with regards to whether that merger would be anti-competitive, create a monopoly, and/or violate antitrust law.
 

drbill28

Registered User
Feb 25, 2003
206
0
Pomfret Center, CT
Visit site
dakota said:
one nice thing about this too, would be a player could request to play in the city of his choice... close to family friends, similar to the way most peoples jobs work... you can request a transfer to another branch (team) etc., you may not get it but you can have the option which would be nice for the players too.
He could request. But like anything else, they could say no. The player would just have to wait longer to get a job in his city of choice. Just like I can want to work in Boston all I want but I have to wait for someone to hire me. Only in this case there's only one place to apply. But it would work two ways. If they chose to run it that way they could transfer Thornton to Atlanta. If he refuses, he gets a pink slip. The point is nothing says trades, free agency, agents, PAs have to exist. Only when separate people own the teams. It's just they way they agreed to run. The PA couldn't be more power than say the UAW.
 

likea

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
599
0
shakes said:
really.. that's not what I get from the TSN article.


they would still be the bargaining agent

they would just have less to bargain over

or are you suggesting owners can't set a budget???

what I am saying is that this would not be a cap

a CBA would not be needed at all because the owner can set a budget that each team sticks to
 

drbill28

Registered User
Feb 25, 2003
206
0
Pomfret Center, CT
Visit site
Epsilon said:
You obviously have no clue as to how US antitrust law works.

Just to make things simple, a monopoly does NOT mean 100% market share.

Every major corporate merger of the past several years (AOL/TW being the most obvious example) has faced rigorous investigation by the US DoJ with regards to whether that merger would be anti-competitive, create a monopoly, and/or violate antitrust law.
Sports are not an sector of the economy, the FEC wouldn't care. This isn't a drug or power company. The DoJ would let it go. When it comes to this the merging of 30 separate franchises into one isn't inherently anti-competitive. They would have to actively not allow comptition to form. That's why Microsoft had it's charges. Not because of its 95% market share in the OS market. But because of its cutthroat practices and knowlegebly keep companies like Sun and Apple down. Forcing people to do only business with them. The is nowhere near as bad as just Microsoft's market share.
 

oil slick

Registered User
Feb 6, 2004
7,593
0
Epsilon said:
You obviously have no clue as to how US antitrust law works.

Just to make things simple, a monopoly does NOT mean 100% market share.

Every major corporate merger of the past several years (AOL/TW being the most obvious example) has faced rigorous investigation by the US DoJ with regards to whether that merger would be anti-competitive, create a monopoly, and/or violate antitrust law.

Now I'll admit I have no clue about how US antitrust law works, so edify me.

I had thought the Sherman act (I assume this is what you're talking about) was mainly to protect consumers from a monopoly situation. I thought it basically said that to monopolize any part of trade or commerce is illegal. In this respect, isn't there tonnes of choices for consumers to spend on sports entertainment? (MLB, NFL)... Maybe I'm confused.
 

Guest

Registered User
Feb 12, 2003
5,599
39
I love this concept, which was brought up originally on these boards many months ago. Forgive me for not remembering who had the original thought, but they said to make the NHL contract the players as a league to solve the CBA. That's a close equation to what this would produce.

I like the idea because the league could then decide to close or open markets at it's discretion. You might see the league expand to 32 teams or contract down to 24-28 teams. You'd still have the management system in place for every team, and they would arrange for a competitive balance through budgets similar to a salary cap. You could still end up with players negotiating their contracts with the team rather than the league, thus the creativity of management style for the GM, as teams could be assembled on concepts.

The reason I love this the most I think is because it solidifies the league and solves many of the current problems today. By having a leader acting as one rather than a group acting on the behalf of one entity, you change the whole dynamic of the way decisions are made in the NHL and the CBA as well.

I only wish these companies were given a shot to purchase the NHL and it's 30 teams. I'd imagine if the NHL were entertaining the thought, you'd have each owner bargaining for his piece of the pie as it would make no sense to split the return equally.
 

Epsilon

#basta
Oct 26, 2002
48,464
369
South Cackalacky
oil slick said:
Now I'll admit I have no clue about how US antitrust law works, so edify me.

I had thought the Sherman act (I assume this is what you're talking about) was mainly to protect consumers from a monopoly situation. I thought it basically said that to monopolize any part of trade or commerce is illegal. In this respect, isn't there tonnes of choices for consumers to spend on sports entertainment? (MLB, NFL)... Maybe I'm confused.

It depends on how narrowly or broadly the DoJ decides to interpret that. For instance, does Microsoft monopolize the "computer industry"? Of course not. Do they monopolize the "operating systems industry"? According to the courts, yes they do.
 

oil slick

Registered User
Feb 6, 2004
7,593
0
Epsilon said:
It depends on how narrowly or broadly the DoJ decides to interpret that. For instance, does Microsoft monopolize the "computer industry"? Of course not. Do they monopolize the "operating systems industry"? According to the courts, yes they do.

I guess I'm looking at it from a common sense approach (which I will admit is not the best approach with law), but it seems that the point of Sherman (and others) was to protect consumers from monopoly situations. Maybe it's only high profile cases I've ever heard about, but it seems that protecting consumer interestest with Bell and Microsoft is very different from protecting NHL player interests with the NHL.
 

drbill28

Registered User
Feb 25, 2003
206
0
Pomfret Center, CT
Visit site
Converse said:
I love this concept, which was brought up originally on these boards many months ago. Forgive me for not remembering who had the original thought, but they said to make the NHL contract the players as a league to solve the CBA. That's a close equation to what this would produce.

I like the idea because the league could then decide to close or open markets at it's discretion. You might see the league expand to 32 teams or contract down to 24-28 teams. You'd still have the management system in place for every team, and they would arrange for a competitive balance through budgets similar to a salary cap. You could still end up with players negotiating their contracts with the team rather than the league, thus the creativity of management style for the GM, as teams could be assembled on concepts.

The reason I love this the most I think is because it solidifies the league and solves many of the current problems today. By having a leader acting as one rather than a group acting on the behalf of one entity, you change the whole dynamic of the way decisions are made in the NHL and the CBA as well.

I only wish these companies were given a shot to purchase the NHL and it's 30 teams. I'd imagine if the NHL were entertaining the thought, you'd have each owner bargaining for his piece of the pie as it would make no sense to split the return equally.

This is all assuming they run it our way. Once they have control. All bets are off. There's a million things they can do and the NHLPA would have zero say in it. The NHLPA currently operates and has more power than the average union. Only because of 30 owners. They become no more powerful than any other union.

Of course to maintain a thriving business. They would have to keep things remotely the same. We're still dealing with fans not just customers. Hopefully write company laws that make sure of it. But who knows. It could be a scary thing if they're risk takers. The point is there is no laws saying they can't make $500,000 the salary for all players regardless of ability. There's nothing illegal about that under one business. Technically they would all be working in the same town performing duties in another. There's a million ways they could do it after that.
 

Epsilon

#basta
Oct 26, 2002
48,464
369
South Cackalacky
I think it would be kind of funny if this happened and all the marquee players were moved to New York, Detroit, Boston, Toronto, LA, and Chicago.
 

drbill28

Registered User
Feb 25, 2003
206
0
Pomfret Center, CT
Visit site
Epsilon said:
It depends on how narrowly or broadly the DoJ decides to interpret that. For instance, does Microsoft monopolize the "computer industry"? Of course not. Do they monopolize the "operating systems industry"? According to the courts, yes they do.
This isn't the same situation. Also it had nothing to Microsoft's market share. It was their business practices (see above). How do you define the market the NHL is in? What is there to have a monopoly over? The DoJ isn't concerned with this sort of matter. It's entertainment. That's the closest industy it could fit in. You have to prove it has the power to block competitors and knowingly block competitors. This would be in no way illegal. But to delibritaly keep the EHCL from trying to compete is.
 

Sled2300

Registered User
Nov 6, 2002
172
0
Visit site
Interesting side note:

Bain Capital purchased SuperPages (Canadian Phone book company based in Western Canada) for 2.3B in Sept 2004. With in 3 months they closed down all expansion markets in Eastern Canada where the company had been loosing money in order to garner Brand recognition.

Just thought the comparison was interesting that this company looks at Business that has a significant net worth, cuts loose what is expendable and will most likely flip the remaining streamlined product for a profit.

Be warned!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->