The Dictator Bob Goodenow better leave the door open with Thursday's offer

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Why can't the NHL implement extensive revenue sharing, since that's something they don't need to bargain with the PA, and then later on, if revenue sharing doesn't work, try to implement their cap?

And what revenue sharing model do you suggest? There is no huge national broadcast revenue so it isn't like you are going to see a lot of funds switch hands there. The big miney in the game is in gate and concessions. It doesn't make sense to share those revenues as the teams that work hard to attract their local fans get shafted in the long run. It would actually hurt some of those teams that are trying to survive like Edmonton by making them share their hard earned gate revenues with those that aren't getting it done like Carolina. Revenue sharing is a great concept if you have a huge pool of revenue to share from.

Next question is why should the owners be expected to share their revenue, and distribute the wealth earned from the risk they take in owning teams, employing people and building arenas, and the players assume no responsibility in sharing revenue. Every successful business that has fought off hard times has done so through a partnership between ownership and the employees. The players are employees. If they feel that there is so much money to be made in the game, why doesn't Pronger, Forsberg, Jagr, Guerin, Holik, etc. get together and buy a franchise and pay the players what THEY feel is fair? Because they know there is not the cash cow in ownership because of the risk associated. The place to be is on the ice with a guaranteed contract.

 

[eye]

Hey eye.
Instead of blathering on and on and on (without offering any reasoning) about Goodenow and the players, why don't you show explain to us why the NHLPA's latest proposal won't work.

Alright?

Because your posts are just about useless.

Explain to me why a 10 percent salary cut, changes to arbitration, a 75 percent tax on salaries over 40 Million, and severe penalties for salaries over 55 Million ... explain to me why this won't help the owners make money.
Explain why they must have a cap.

Now, if you can do this is a logical, reasonable fashion, carry on with your tedious method of posting.

Consider this a "Put Up Or Shut Up" challenge.
Thank you.

This impasse has been building up for the past 10 years. I'm suprised that it took this long for this day to come. I have been waiting several years for this league to get its house in order from it's finances to the way the game is now being played. I was posting long before anyone else on the issue of the game deteriorating. If you don't believe me go ask Phoenix long time posters on the Coyotes board.

For the answers to your questions refer to Bobby Clarke's answers to those exact questions for the right answers or listen to Bill Watters 10 times a day and he will answer them for you in a very balanced and well thought out manner that might not be annoying to you. I have a hunch that anyone that doesn't agree with your viewpoint however is annoying to you. Am I right?

 

[me2]

And what revenue sharing model do you suggest? There is no huge national broadcast revenue so it isn't like you are going to see a lot of funds switch hands there. The big miney in the game is in gate and concessions. It doesn't make sense to share those revenues as the teams that work hard to attract their local fans get shafted in the long run. It would actually hurt some of those teams that are trying to survive like Edmonton by making them share their hard earned gate revenues with those that aren't getting it done like Carolina. Revenue sharing is a great concept if you have a huge pool of revenue to share from.

Why not one where the players pay 50% of their earnings into a communal fund. If a team makes a loss and it is only liable to pay up to the point where it starts losing money. The players communal fund fund then picks up the rest. Any remaining monies are redistributed to the players at the percentage they paid in. This was every player gets paid the same overall percentage of his contract. It allows richer teams to subsidise poorer teams through high contracts which contribute more to the communal fund (ie Tampa can keep spending on its players knowing it won't have to find those extra $15m dollars).

Win-win for players, rich teams, poor teams and revenue sharing.

The question is do the players believe in revenue sharing when its their money they are sharing?

 

[YellHockey*]

And what revenue sharing model do you suggest? There is no huge national broadcast revenue so it isn't like you are going to see a lot of funds switch hands there. The big miney in the game is in gate and concessions. It doesn't make sense to share those revenues as the teams that work hard to attract their local fans get shafted in the long run. It would actually hurt some of those teams that are trying to survive like Edmonton by making them share their hard earned gate revenues with those that aren't getting it done like Carolina. Revenue sharing is a great concept if you have a huge pool of revenue to share from.

Don't have a huge pool of revenue? There's 2.1 BILLION dollars in the pool. Split 30 ways, that's $70M a team. Plenty of money to go around for everyone.

Who cares where the revenue comes from? If they split it there is no longer revenue disparity. There are no more cries about how the Rangers and Red Wings are making the Oilers and Flames suffer since they're all on equal ground.

Why should the players want to be partners with the owners when they don't even want to be partners with themselves?

Next question is why should the owners be expected to share their revenue, and distribute the wealth earned from the risk they take in owning teams, employing people and building arenas, and the players assume no responsibility in sharing revenue. Every successful business that has fought off hard times has done so through a partnership between ownership and the employees. The players are employees. If they feel that there is so much money to be made in the game, why doesn't Pronger, Forsberg, Jagr, Guerin, Holik, etc. get together and buy a franchise and pay the players what THEY feel is fair? Because they know there is not the cash cow in ownership because of the risk associated. The place to be is on the ice with a guaranteed contract.

Well two franchises are owned by players. Many current players own hockey teams at lower levels of play.

 

[PecaFan]

what makes you think that the NLRB will side with the owners??? The law (National Labor Relation Act) requires that both sides "bargain in good faith." This means that they both must come to the table willing to give and take.

*sigh*. Concessions are not required for good faith barganing. Once again I quote the NLRB:

"Bargaining obligations are imposed equally on the employer and the representative of its employees. It is an unfair labor practice for either party to refuse to bargain collectively with the other. The obligation does not, however, compel either party to agree to a proposal by the other, nor does it require either party to make a concession to the other."
http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_fil...=/nlrb/employee/faqs/default.asp#questionID87

 

[Pepper]

Are you kidding me? Mommy...Johnny has a red waggon, and Steve L has a Red Wagon......now i MUST have a red waggon. Give me a break.

Why is it that a large majority of the pro-PA yahoos here sound like teenagers?? This is getting ridiculous.

 

[Steve L*]

Why is it that a large majority of the pro-PA yahoos here sound like teenagers?? This is getting ridiculous.

Probably because all the intelligent people have looked at the problems, worked out a solution and realise that the owners have come up with it, not the NHLPA.

 

[SENSible1*]

Steve, none of your posts are logical or intelligent. Anyone who supports the owners clearly does not understand much. I mean, what kind of morons were WANTING a lockout to 'stick it to the players'? Thats assinine.

Is there a reason the mods allow this poster to be insulting in every post?

 

[no13matssundin]

Is there a reason the mods allow this poster to be insulting in every post?

I agree. ScaredSensFan doesnt seem to have any hockey talk but only insults. Where are the mods? Is this the kind of thing that HFBoards condones?

 

[MarkZackKarl]

You guys are right, I should rephrase my comments a bit. Sorry.

 

[Seachd]

Don't have a huge pool of revenue? There's 2.1 BILLION dollars in the pool. Split 30 ways, that's $70M a team. Plenty of money to go around for everyone.

Then why not split $1.6 billion in salaries 800 ways? That's almost $2 million each. Plenty of money to go around.

 

[Taranis_24]

what makes you think that the NLRB will side with the owners??? The law (National Labor Relation Act) requires that both sides "bargain in good faith." This means that they both must come to the table willing to give and take. The players are showing that they are bargaining in good faith I can't say the same for the owners. So there is not chance in hell that NLRB will side with the owners.

So, if the owners come back with a salary cap of $35M (up from $31m) would consider that as bargaining in good faith. Neither is bargaining off the others position. Bargaining is a two-way street. I just want to understand your definition of good-faith bargaining. If the owners come back with a higher salary cap does that consistute goo-faith by your reasoning it seems it does.

 

[IWD]

Both sides need to make some concessions. That much is obvious. I'm not sure why everyone is so pro-owner, though. I mean, as fans, we're the backbone of the league. I'd rather my money go toward the product I'm supporting than a rich owner. Granted, it ultimately will go towards a rich owner who will then dole out salaries. What I mean, however, is that I'd rather a greater portion go towards the players I enjoy watching. I have a feeling that people who think that prices will go down significantly if there's a cap will be in for a rude awakening, but that's me.

The players are the victims, if anything here I would say. How would you like it if someone started telling you they wanted to limit your ability to make money? Oh right, millionaires waive their right to make as much money as they can, right? Oh wait, owners don't. Hmm...

 

[Seachd]

Explain to me why a 10 percent salary cut, changes to arbitration, a 75 percent tax on salaries over 40 Million, and severe penalties for salaries over 55 Million ... explain to me why this won't help the owners make money.
Explain why they must have a cap.

A 10% salary cut is an absolute joke. Not , or , but more like :lol . What good does it do? As Brian Burke said, it's like paying a toll once to drive on the same highway over and over again. McKenzie indicates that the owners don't think much of this either.

What I would like explained is why players are not willing to accept a tie between salaries and revenues. How much more fair can you get? Put a good product on the ice, and watch revenues and salaries rise. The players assume zero financial risk, but they want all the rewards, and what's worse, they want them at the expense of the game. They don't care what or who they take out in the process, whether it be teams, fans, or other players.

What really floors me is that both what the players and the owners want allows for tremendous growth in salaries. But one way works towards the health of the league as a whole, and one tears it apart in the process. Until the players are willing to work together with the league to help it grow, instead of barely recognizing that major problems exist, it's quite obvious they're only looking out for themselves. I still think the most disappointing part is that they're turning their backs on Stanley himself, and I don't think he'd be too proud of that.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

This impasse has been building up for the past 10 years. I'm suprised that it took this long for this day to come. I have been waiting several years for this league to get its house in order from it's finances to the way the game is now being played. I was posting long before anyone else on the issue of the game deteriorating. If you don't believe me go ask Phoenix long time posters on the Coyotes board.

For the answers to your questions refer to Bobby Clarke's answers to those exact questions for the right answers or listen to Bill Watters 10 times a day and he will answer them for you in a very balanced and well thought out manner that might not be annoying to you. I have a hunch that anyone that doesn't agree with your viewpoint however is annoying to you. Am I right?

You ducked the question.
Again.
So do us all a favor and keep your ill-informed opinions to yourself

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Probably because all the intelligent people have looked at the problems, worked out a solution and realise that the owners have come up with it, not the NHLPA.

Are you serious?
Read this thread. In fact, read any post by the author of this thread.
No facts. Just plain old name calling (Dictator Goodenow, etc)

I guess that's what passes for "intelligence" these days.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

A 10% salary cut is an absolute joke. Not , or , but more like :lol . What good does it do? As Brian Burke said, it's like paying a toll once to drive on the same highway over and over again. McKenzie indicates that the owners don't think much of this either.

Look, even if the 10 percent cut were proposed alone, it's nothing to sneeze at. Not at all.
But still, it doesn't address some fundamental problems (ie, solving the owners' inability to run their franchise with discipline or intelligence)\

You can't simply look at the 10 percent rollback by itself.
Put it in the context of the entire proposal.
The 10 percent rollback lowers salaries. Then the Luxury Tax allows owners to keep them down.

It's a comprehensive offer that goes A LONG WAY toward meeting the owners' needs.

What I would like explained is why players are not willing to accept a tie between salaries and revenues. How much more fair can you get? Put a good product on the ice, and watch revenues and salaries rise. The players assume zero financial risk, but they want all the rewards, and what's worse, they want them at the expense of the game. They don't care what or who they take out in the process, whether it be teams, fans, or other players.

1. Because a hard cap has no flexibility at all for the players.
2. Because the players simply do not trust the owners a) to report revenue accurately b) to generate revenue

You have to remember where the CBA negotiations are coming from.
The NHLPA has showed UNBELIEVABLE movement. They've given up millions in concessions already.

What really floors me is that both what the players and the owners want allows for tremendous growth in salaries. But one way works towards the health of the league as a whole, and one tears it apart in the process. Until the players are willing to work together with the league to help it grow, instead of barely recognizing that major problems exist, it's quite obvious they're only looking out for themselves. I still think the most disappointing part is that they're turning their backs on Stanley himself, and I don't think he'd be too proud of that.

How in the world does a salary cap allow tremendous growth in salaries?
Are you high?
How does giving up 10 percent salary and then installing 75 percent luxury tax on $40M raise salaries.

Both decrease salaries immensely.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

I am also shocked at the reported 75% LT over 44 million (is it 44 million or 40 million)? I would figure they'd be at like 66% tax with teams over 45million, then 75% tax of those over 50, 80% for those over 55 etc... just what makes sense to me.

The union will not accept ah ard cap, but lower UFA ages and some type of LT is likely. (ie. tax at 45, ufa at 29 or 28.)

 

[Loki]

Are you kidding me? Mommy...Johnny has a red waggon, and Steve L has a Red Wagon......now i MUST have a red waggon. Give me a break.

... and in completely related news. I have another member on my Ignore list.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

The players are the victims, if anything here I would say. How would you like it if someone started telling you they wanted to limit your ability to make money? Oh right, millionaires waive their right to make as much money as they can, right? Oh wait, owners don't. Hmm...

Well, the last time I looked 99% of working people in the world are limited by the amount of money they can make. I would love to be able to walk into my boss at the end of my contract and tell him that I am holding out for three or four times what I was making a few weeks earlier. Even though I get along great with my co-workers, am identified as a key member of the team and provide a leadership role, and customers say I am an invaluable asset to them, the minute I asked more than what the company or industry was able to pay I would be out of a job and someone would be hired to replace me. That is the reality of most of the working stiffs out there. We all have delusions of granduer and that were unreplaceable, but we also recognize how fragile our employment can be and don't take a hardline stance that might inflame the ownership/management and see us terminated.

One thing I think you miss in your argument is assumed risk. The players are not assuming much risk, other than their physical well being, and they are being paid very well for that risk. To have expectations that they should get more money, or even maintain status quo, is sort of silly. When the players wish to start assuming a financial risk then I think they can say some of the things they have. But to spend someone else's money the way they have for the past decade just doesn't work any longer. The NHL is looking for a partnership where salaries are tied to revenues. When revenues go up, so do salaries. When revenues go down, so do salaries. It works that way in all other industries, so why should the NHL be different?

 

[txpd]

Both sides need to make some concessions. That much is obvious. I'm not sure why everyone is so pro-owner, though. I mean, as fans, we're the backbone of the league. I'd rather my money go toward the product I'm supporting than a rich owner.

1. both sides need to make concessions?
a. nhl: salary cap b. nhlpa: no salary cap. how do both sides concede on that main point? there is no middle ground there.

2. you'd rather your money go toward the product rather than some rich owner.
thats great if you have a well healed owner with money and knows how to spend it right. thats not so good if the owner is bad(chicago) or doesnt know how to spend it right(washington) or doesnt have to money to come close to competing(edmonton, pheonix, minnesota, nashville).

these teams are only as good the quality of the market they are in the quality of the ownership in control. i suppose you would trust the viability of your favorite team to a guy like Jeremy Roenick?

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

When revenues go up, so do salaries. When revenues go down, so do salaries. It works that way in all other industries, so why should the NHL be different?

So when did revenues go down? Maybe salaries would go down when revenues go down. When revenues were going up very quickly during the first five years of the agreement, salaries went up very quickly. When revenue growth slowed, so did salary growth.

What else would we expect?

Tom

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

So when did revenues go down? Maybe salaries would go down when revenues go down. When revenues were going up very quickly during the first five years of the agreement, salaries went up very quickly. When revenue growth slowed, so did salary growth.

What else would we expect?

Tom

Salary growth surpassed revenue growth. No business survives when the salary component eats up 76% of revenues. Salaries escalated out of control and its time for them to be brought back under control. The computer industry crashed and almost burned because salaries raced out of control. It has adjusted and salaries are back to normal levels for the most part. Should hackey wait for the whole thing to come crashing down and several teams fold before the league and players recognize the errors in their ways like other industries have?

 

[MojoJojo]

I think the pro owner lobbyists are going to be in for a big surprise when the NLRB rules against them.

Things like salary caps are marginally legal under US employment law, since it basically amounts to collusion and wage fixing across an industry. If they want a cap, it better be with the written consent of teh players union, or it can be shot down by the NLRB or a court of law. If the owners want a cap, they have to give something up to get it.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Salary growth surpassed revenue growth. No business survives when the salary component eats up 76% of revenues.

Says the NHL. The only audited set of books I've seen are Ottawa's.

Salaries escalated out of control and its time for them to be brought back under control.

Says the NHL. The only audited set of books I've seen are Ottawa's.

The computer industry crashed and almost burned because salaries raced out of control.

This has what to do with hockey?

Should hackey wait for the whole thing to come crashing down and several teams fold before the league and players recognize the errors in their ways like other industries have?

Yes. This is a fate that the NHL has claimed is just around the corner for as long as I've been a fan. Bill Wirtz and Harry Sinden were making exactly the same claims in the 1970's. Until I see pieces of the sky actually fall or the wolf actually eatuing sheep, I'm not going to believe them.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Tom