ulmers take: players cant win

[bleedgreen]

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/01/12/896001.html
i like this article because it focuses on the big picture. it doesnt matter who is right or wrong - the owners have already won because they can afford to wait it out and will. its nothing new or groundbreaking, but i still see people going back and forth with the issues like it matters....it doesnt. the owners are going to change the system, period. they will wait for it - and the players will have no choice. does anyone think it still think the players can win? does anyone think they can out wait the owners?

Click to read more...

 

[Nomad]

The longer it goes, the easier it will be for them to wait. Eventually teams are going to have to panic. When Carolina still has to pay its debt without generating any revenue, they have a short lifespan. With the players, as the lockout goes longer and longer, the first year revenues can be expected to be lower and lower, which means that they won't be making that much by coming back anyway.

 

[Gee Wally]

I think the article was a bullseye.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

.

Does any logical person really believe that the owners can survive years upon years of shut down for their hockey teams? Sure they are billionaires, but if by this time next year there is no hockey, they'll practically have no fanbases left in any of the cities, or at least a severely reduced fan base.


The whole point that you people miss is that the owners have a lot of auxillary factors they can lose out on the longer they drag this out. Does any one here understand the concept of goodwill? How is completely ignoring and alienating your fanbase a good thing? Sure there are some simpletons that still believe this is a lockout to 'save the small markets' but that is BS and always has been. Ive seen it for years, others, not so lucky.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

The longer it goes, the easier it will be for them to wait. Eventually teams are going to have to panic. When Carolina still has to pay its debt without generating any revenue, they have a short lifespan. With the players, as the lockout goes longer and longer, the first year revenues can be expected to be lower and lower, which means that they won't be making that much by coming back anyway.

Wow, you are for real. I thought you were joking in the other thread.

So which is more palatable to Carolina? Lose $5 million in finance payments during a lockout, or lose $10 million during a season of hockey?

The players don't get it. The owners are billionaires with other ventures that are making them plenty of money to live on. They can wait indefinitely. If they get tired of waiting they can just fold the enterprise and be done with it. Then what? For every franchise that folds, there goes 25 NHL level jobs and 25 union members. That's good for the union and good for the game?

 

[eye]

Does any logical person really believe that the owners can survive years upon years of shut down for their hockey teams? Sure they are billionaires, but if by this time next year there is no hockey, they'll practically have no fanbases left in any of the cities, or at least a severely reduced fan base.


The whole point that you people miss is that the owners have a lot of auxillary factors they can lose out on the longer they drag this out. Does any one here understand the concept of goodwill? How is completely ignoring and alienating your fanbase a good thing? Sure there are some simpletons that still believe this is a lockout to 'save the small markets' but that is BS and always has been. Ive seen it for years, others, not so lucky.

You see owners are supported by the majority of us to fix a league that most of us agree is broken. Some good will come out of all of this. Rules will be altered and enforced to improve the game. If need be owners after a work stoppage that last longer than a year and fans are lost may or will lower ticket prices to entice fans back to their arenas. It will all be relative since players will be paid much less the longer they hold out. For a fan of a team that was almost lost to bankruptcy I'm suprised at your ongoing support of the NHLPA. It's the PA, agents and past CBA's that almost cost you your favourite team.

 

[Gee Wally]

Does any logical person really believe that the owners can survive years upon years of shut down for their hockey teams? QUOTE]


Yup....although it won't be years and years...it will be until the NHLPA eats what's being served.

Setting aside all the rhetoric and emotion. It's business. Just business.

Could some franchises be lost ?

Sure.

The sport has survived that before and will again if need be. Could there be replacement players ? Yup yet again. The game will suffer for a relatively short period of time. But in the end all players get replaced. It's just an accelerated cycle.


Arguing what's fair and what's not fair isn't really applicable. The real arguement in my opinion is what's real and what's not.

For better or worse...the best deal the players can get is whatever is there today. each day that goes by the offer will be of less value.

And don't get me wrong..I'm not *pro* any side in this. I think the whole situation stinks. But I'm prepared to wait it out.

 

[Nomad]

Iconoclast - I take it to extremes, but the reason I use that as the argument is under the assumption that the NHL will resume under a system that is not business as usual. Even if they just accepted the PA's latest offer (I don't believe they should, as it was rightfully a negotiating point rather than a take it or leave it offer), the losses of those teams would be diminished or eliminated. The argument that they lose less by not playing assumes a continuation of the old system, which has never been an option that the PA has pursued.

Even if Carolina was only break-even under that plan, it would be better than losing $5M in finance payments plus the administrative salaries that they are paying.

Some of the owners are billionaires, to be sure. Those are the ones who can wait this thing out. But many others are not - Pittsburgh was bought partly on the strength of equity owed to Mario Lemieux by the old incarnation of ownership - they don't have that strong financial backing that props up Ottawa, Buffalo, the Rangers, or the Red Wings.

The point I am trying to make is that the league is claiming a level of unity. While those rich owners might not care what happens to the teams that are on more shaky financial ground, the unity the league is claiming is the strength behind its position. While some owners might be okay with the teams being folded, the league and those owners can't be. The league has to show concern for those teams - those are the ones it claims to be fighting for, and letting them die off weakens their position.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

So if they are billionaires and the money that they 'lose' operating the NHL teams doesn't matter to them, then why are they having an extended lockout?

 

[Pepper]

So if they are billionaires and the money that they 'lose' operating the NHL teams doesn't matter to them, then why are they having an extended lockout?

Because they don't want to make losses in the long-term.

Are you really that clueless or simply trolling?

 

[Gee Wally]

So if they are billionaires and the money that they 'lose' operating the NHL teams doesn't matter to them, then why are they having an extended lockout?

I look at it strictly as an investment. They care about money. But you spend some ( lockout ) to make more ( rock solid CBA ).

Like I said ..business 101 ...just with a few more 0000's attached.

 

[Gee Wally]

Also ..and this is a general statement to all here.

No more personalizing posts... Read the rules. Stay on subject.

 

[ti-vite]

'Careers are short and Sears doesn't pay nearly as well.'

Love it.

 

[Nomad]

Not that it makes it easier for them than the owners, but they are still making money in the interim, some are making money overseas, and over time it could become easier for them to justify to themselves because the longer it goes, the more important it could become to them not to be tied directly into continually decreasing revenues.

 

[Marshall]

That's possible, but if I had to guess, I would say it isn't probable. Most of the players elsewhere would still be making more in the NHL. AK Bars is brought up often as an example of a club that's shilling out for NHL talent, but SI's Michael Farber has reported that "According to a source with knowledge of the contracts, Ak Bars's 12 NHL players will together earn something in the neighborhood of $15
million. "

These are star players, and they are probably making less than the league minimum. I don't think there's any chance that they will stand on a principle when they will make more in the NHL, cap or no cap.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this, because it really seems to me that the Owners are in a better position to play the waiting game than the Players are.

 

[Gee Wally]

That's possible, but if I had to guess, I would say it isn't probable. Most of the players elsewhere would still be making more in the NHL. AK Bars is brought up often as an example of a club that's shilling out for NHL talent, but SI's Michael Farber has reported that "According to a source with knowledge of the contracts, Ak Bars's 12 NHL players will together earn something in the neighborhood of $15
million. "

.

Yup...and most of that goes to them being able to pay their own insurance.

Many of the players "over there" are just covering costs.

 

[Drake1588]

There is one irony seldom raised... the teams with the most economic problems tend to have the ownership groups with the least disposable income, i.e. there's not a billionaire among them. It is most important for those owners to arrive at a new system, but the longer it goes, it is they who feel the pinch most acutely.

...and those billionaires so often cited as examples of why the players can never win? They tend to own the teams that do well, draw well, have avid fan bases. As a result, it is they who are anxious to get the season up and running again ASAP. They have the money to wait out the players, but since their teams make a healthy profit, the wealthy ownership groups want to play this season. They chafe at Bettman's strategy.

Something to consider.

 

[me2]

There is one irony seldom raised... the teams with the most economic problems tend to have the ownership groups with the least disposable income, i.e. there's not a billionaire among them. It is most important for those owners to arrive at a new system, but the longer it goes, it is they who feel the pinch most acutely.

True. But they are also the ones most likely to suffer if there is no new CBA. Iif they cave in they've lost. Their only hope is the players crack because they can't afford to.

...and those billionaires so often cited as examples of why the players can never win? They tend to own the teams that do well, draw well, have avid fan bases. As a result, it is they who are anxious to get the season up and running again ASAP. They have the money to wait out the players, but since their teams make a healthy profit, the wealthy ownership groups want to play this season.

Their franchise values will go through the roof with a new CBA. They could lose $20m in profit in a lockout and make $40m in capital gains. Heck they might even make $20m additional profit every year of the CBA through salary saving. They are quite capable of working out just how much more they'll make.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Their franchise values will go through the roof with a new CBA. They could lose $20m in profit in a lockout and make $40m in capital gains. Heck they might even make $20m additional profit every year of the CBA through salary saving. They are quite capable of working out just how much more they'll make.

Exactly. Which is why the players chances were always next to nothing. The average that I saw the NHLPA claim somewhere was a four year career for the average player. Four years. They already have blown one of those four years that they worked their whole lives for. Care to try for half your career on average players?

Meanwhile the owners do suffer losses . . . or do they? As pointed out above, they could theoretically get those all back and then some with a system in place that limits the bleeding of funds toward players in the highest percentage of any sport. Not even baseball, with its myriad of problems, gives its players anywhere close to what hockey does. Limit that bleeding and franchise values have no where to go but up. Get a real cap and the values would go through the ceiling.

The players can not afford to lose another year. They could not afford to lose this one with that four year window. The owners always were sitting pretty.

 

[thinkwild]

For a fan of a team that was almost lost to bankruptcy I'm suprised at your ongoing support of the NHLPA. It's the PA, agents and past CBA's that almost cost you your favourite team.

One of the problems is that this view, that Ottawas and Buffalo's problems in bakruptcy were CBA related, is key to the point the PA has been arguing. Bettman himself has admitted that thee were not CBA related problems. Yet this misperception continues to be used as reason change is needed. Most of the Levitt losses, perhaps 75% of them, are not in fact CBA related.

Not to say that there werent problems, just not all the problems attempted to be solved are in fact CBA problems. Like this standard canard about Ottawa.

 

[thinkwild]

The players opening offer in negotiations was to trake a pay cut. To say they were trying to "win" is a relative thing. The players havent tried to win a PR war either.

 

[djhn579]

One of the problems is that this view, that Ottawas and Buffalo's problems in bakruptcy were CBA related, is key to the point the PA has been arguing. Bettman himself has admitted that thee were not CBA related problems. Yet this misperception continues to be used as reason change is needed. Most of the Levitt losses, perhaps 75% of them, are not in fact CBA related.

Not to say that there werent problems, just not all the problems attempted to be solved are in fact CBA problems. Like this standard canard about Ottawa.

At least for the Buffalo Sabres, the bankruptcy was not directly due to the CBA. It was more due to the owner stealing money from his cable company to pay for the hockey team. But, the salary inflation of the old CBA did result in the Sabres having to give up players and prevented them from being able to go after other players. Maybe this had something to do with their not being able to develop or get the players needed to be as sucessful as some other teams? And, maybe if the salary inflation was not so bad, the Sabres would not have been in debt, and the owner would not have had to steal from the cable company to pay the hockey bills?

But, that is just one way to look at the situation...

 

[Nomad]

The owners didn't steal from the cable to pay hockey bills. The owners stole from cable to line their own pockets. They just happened to have some of their finances from the Adelphia tied into their hockey team (since it was a "loan" from Adelphia, that was never paid, which financed the purchase of the team), so when the funds of one were frozen, the funds of all were frozen.

As for Buffalo not being able to compete...this is the team that made the finals after making the conference finals we are talking about, right? Their problems with salary escalation and keeping players didn't really start until shortly before it all came down.

 

[futurcorerock]

You see, i dont know...

By then, players will have jobs and such. Luke Richardson says he's looking in to picking up a job at Dairy Queen

 

[GirardIsStupid]

mike ulmer describes the situation very accurately. the owners are the fools who let everything get out of control but the players would be stupid to not give in now. the NHLPA is fighting a losing battle and they've misjudged the resolve of the league's owners.

however, ulmer incorrectly states that the owners are the ones that own 'the game'. the fans own it because they're the ones who live and die with it. plus, they, wrongfully, pay for the jacked up tickets prices. its not fair the owners have imposed this lockout, all the while raping the little number of hard core fans of their money (who are not even aware how badly they're being taken advantage of).

as a result, i find it even more disturbing that many fans here are quick to judge the players but won't make the owners accountable. as long as the fans continue to be naive, we deserve to be without hockey for a long time since we're just plain, bad consumers.