The bias of Jack and Jill Hockey Fan in the labour dispute

[kurt]

Obviously, we're all sour about this whole lockout issue. I usually run a hockey pool with participants across Western Canada, and NHL hockey is a healthy distraction from my studies at school.

However, I think it's important that more people try to make an effort to look at this situation through a more impartial lens.

It's easy to side with the owners. The owners are fighting for a system that makes fans (especially small market fans) almost giddy. Could you imagine the Flames and Hurricanes playing on a level playing field with the Rangers and Red Wings? The idea definitely has it's appeal.

However, is that a good way to make decisions, and form opinions? Or should we look deeper? I'd like to think that most people look at the principles involved and try to decide what is fair, and what feels like the right decision, rather than simply looking at what benefits me.

Imagine a "salary cap" business environment. Poor teams would be more competitive. Great. However, the Detroits, Colorados, and New Yorks of the league would be making a HUGE amount of money, as they have no opportunity to return these revenues to the players. They're not allowed to. It's a world where players are not making money relative to the revenue they generate. Rather, they're limited by an artificial barrier.

Sure, it's out of the ordinary that 75% of revenues go to player salaries, but consider the industry they're in. Who is providing the value? Is it the owner, that invests the capital? Or is it the player, who trains for a lifetime, and often plays through severe injury to win? Look at movie stars... Brad Pitt, the cast of Friends. Look at the money they're making. They're being compensated for the amount of revenue they generate. NHL players deserve the same, don't they?

Sure, the NHL would have much more exciting rivalries under a salary cap system, and that benefits us, as fans, a heck of a lot. But, does that make it right? My gut tells me no.

Click to read more...

 

[Jack Canuck]

I understand what you are saying, and agree with much of it. I do not know that a hard cap would be the right solution, but I do feel that the owners need to deal with this situation firmly, and ensure that they have a system in place that will provide stability for all teams.

It will suck for the players to take a pay cut, but in the long run I think the popularity of the league will increase. I see this happening if the owners have more revenues, and spend more to promote the game. Once league popularity increases and revenues continue to increase through tickets, merchandise, t.v. deals and so on then players salaries can once again increase.

Basically, I think the healthier teams are the higher players would be able to be paid assuming that the cap follows a certain % of league revenues. That opens the whole discussion about what numbers do they use to determine league revenue though.

 

[garry1221]

Obviously, we're all sour about this whole lockout issue. I usually run a hockey pool with participants across Western Canada, and NHL hockey is a healthy distraction from my studies at school.

However, I think it's important that more people try to make an effort to look at this situation through a more impartial lens.

It's easy to side with the owners. The owners are fighting for a system that makes fans (especially small market fans) almost giddy. Could you imagine the Flames and Hurricanes playing on a level playing field with the Rangers and Red Wings? The idea definitely has it's appeal.

However, is that a good way to make decisions, and form opinions? Or should we look deeper? I'd like to think that most people look at the principles involved and try to decide what is fair, and what feels like the right decision, rather than simply looking at what benefits me.

Imagine a "salary cap" business environment. Poor teams would be more competitive. Great. However, the Detroits, Colorados, and New Yorks of the league would be making a HUGE amount of money, as they have no opportunity to return these revenues to the players. They're not allowed to. It's a world where players are not making money relative to the revenue they generate. Rather, they're limited by an artificial barrier.

Sure, it's out of the ordinary that 75% of revenues go to player salaries, but consider the industry they're in. Who is providing the value? Is it the owner, that invests the capital? Or is it the player, who trains for a lifetime, and often plays through severe injury to win? Look at movie stars... Brad Pitt, the cast of Friends. Look at the money they're making. They're being compensated for the amount of revenue they generate. NHL players deserve the same, don't they?

Sure, the NHL would have much more exciting rivalries under a salary cap system, and that benefits us, as fans, a heck of a lot. But, does that make it right? My gut tells me no.

how could you accurately determine the revenue each player brings in? do you give the superstars a larger chunk than the 3rd-4th liners? seems unfair doesn't it, the revenue a TEAM generates SHOULD be kept by that team, guidelines would have to be put in place and every team watched over so that the revenue that was made would be put right back into the team somehow someway.... who's to say exactly what, but if the revenue the TEAM made was put back into the organization then i see no problem with it, but if you have a robin hood scenario where the larger markets are being taken from to support the smaller markets to keep them from going too far into the red, THAT's the issue i have w/ any sort of revenue sharing

in the first case i brought up, if the superstars were getting a larger chunk of the revenue than the lesser liked players there would be some sort of dissent in the air i'd think, it'd be like a player is playing on commission, in a way it'd be every player for himself and not so much his TEAM, it's always said this is a team game, why should there be hurdles or barriers put up to separate the players so to speak

 

[me2]

Sure, the NHL would have much more exciting rivalries under a salary cap system, and that benefits us, as fans, a heck of a lot. But, does that make it right? My gut tells me no.

Its not fair on Igilna that he's a Flame, he'd make millions more Toronto. Kovalchuk could rake in the cash in NYR. Philly could use Bouwmeister and make him richer. Lets have no RFAs, no draft and all UFAs. Lets make it a true free market,

6 ($55m+)clubs will buy all the good players not over the hill UFAs. Exisitng payrolls won't increase, they won't need to as they will just raid the weaker clubs best players and dump the older expensive ones. For example Tampa and Calgary would get raided of all of their stars.

6 ($40m) can't compete with the $60m clubs but put up half an effort. Lose their best players to big 6, just hang around as playoff fodder.

8-10 ($25-30m) clubs then decide to spend within their means as there is no point going higher and losing money with no chance of winning. Hanging around hoping to make the playoffs and get knocked out in the 1st round.

10-12 clubs will become feeder with $10-20m payrolls or fold. These teams will pick up rookies and oldies. They'll be paid marginally more than AHLers and not a lot more and act purely as feeders. They have no intention of spending more as it won't help unless they can double or triple salary, which they can't.

Lets see how the players would like it.

 

[ceber]

However, is that a good way to make decisions, and form opinions? Or should we look deeper? I'd like to think that most people look at the principles involved and try to decide what is fair, and what feels like the right decision, rather than simply looking at what benefits me.

I think looking at what benefits you the most is the best way to form an opinion on this CBA issue. Neither ownership nor the union needs looking after; they're grown-ups, and they can take care of themselves. I think the fans should be concerned with what benefits them, and the game of hockey, the most. The league is going to take in a plie of money. Why should I care who gets what percentage of it? Some sense of 'fairness' ? If I'm concerned about fair, I stop paying for games and start donating that money to worthy causes like cancer research.

 

[stv11]

Imagine a "salary cap" business environment. Poor teams would be more competitive. Great. However, the Detroits, Colorados, and New Yorks of the league would be making a HUGE amount of money, as they have no opportunity to return these revenues to the players. They're not allowed to. It's a world where players are not making money relative to the revenue they generate. Rather, they're limited by an artificial barrier.

That's the reason why there's no point in having a hard salary cap without any revenue sharing system.

 

[triggrman]

To look at the NHL and compare it to other businesses you have to take the NHL as one company with 30 divisions, a salary cap is the budget for each department.

 

[stv11]

I don't like all these comparisons with companies, mainly for two reasons :

Team owners don't earn their wages by running a hockey team, and the players are not only workers, but they are the product as well.

You won't ever find this occuring in a normal company.

 

[habitual_hab]

Sure, it's out of the ordinary that 75% of revenues go to player salaries...

The Levitt report states that 75% of net revenue goes to player salaries while Bettman says 75% of gross revenue. Which is it - 'cause it makes a HUGE difference.

And the 75% figure is pure fallacy. The real figure is probably 10 points lower.