When this tree fell in the forest, who noticed? (CBA & Lockout Discussion)- Part V

[TheTakedown]

I am hoping to see more of this from State Senators around the country...probably doesnt mean anything but at least it is something.

http://www.lautenberg.senate.gov/assets/nhl.pdf

yeah caught this earlier too... Great idea. Would be nice if other senators would kick their opinion in.

 

[sandysan]

Are past CBA concessions taken into account ?

From the last negotiation where the players agreed to things they absolutely detested ( rollbacks and the cap), it turned out that things still worked pretty well for them. I'm just wondering if the PA takes this into account when they are asked to make more concessions or are they only focused on the specifics of the deal in front of them ?

What if the players cave in again this time and in another 8 years the owners cry that they still cant make a profit, what does that say about the viability of the teams that are in financial straits despite being able to dictate the terms of the CBA ?

 

[Mike Jones]

I am hoping to see more of this from State Senators around the country...probably doesnt mean anything but at least it is something.

NJ Senators Lautenberg and Menendez to Bettman and Fehr.

http://www.lautenberg.senate.gov/assets/nhl.pdf

I think this means a lot because it deals in hard economics and how badly these posturing idiots are causing harm to people across Canada and the United States. Canadian politicians should do this as well.

 

[Dado]

How does it hurt people? Fans will simply spend their money on other activities, the net economic effect on Joe Schmoe is zilch.

 

[WinterEmpire]

How does it hurt people? Fans will simply spend their money on other activities, the net economic effect on Joe Schmoe is zilch.

Well it hurts those whose jobs/businesses depend on Hockey being played(etc. restaurants, bars,sports merch stores, stadium employees)

Although the money won't be lost on the whole, the re-distribution of spending will affect a large amount of people.

 

[Grasshopperking]

How does it hurt people? Fans will simply spend their money on other activities, the net economic effect on Joe Schmoe is zilch.

And all the non-millionaire employees whose jobs depend on a deal will just sit tight, right?

 

[NjDevsRR]

How does it hurt people? Fans will simply spend their money on other activities, the net economic effect on Joe Schmoe is zilch.

The thousands upon thousands of workers that have jobs during the hockey season. Newark is a prime example the area around the arena has blossomed and is quite nice now, so many new restaurants and bars and even a brand new hotel. Plus the workers in the arena. It is bad for Joe Schmoe.

 

[ManyIdeas]

How does it hurt people? Fans will simply spend their money on other activities, the net economic effect on Joe Schmoe is zilch.

I forgot owners and players are the ones serving me my beer at hockey games

 

[Dado]

The thousands upon thousands of workers that have jobs during the hockey season.

The money will simply go elsewhere, to other businesses with other employees, who otherwise do worse when hockey is actually being played.

It's good for Joe Schmoe every bit as much as it is bad for Joe Schmoe - a wash.

 

[mossey3535]

Ex NHL Owner on Dan Tencer's show in Edmonton said last week that the first step to ending the lockout is that the owners have to let the players keep their share for this upcoming year (57%) and then the rest of the years could have a reduced share of HRR towards players.

Still doesn't negate the fact that the NHLPA should have tabled an offer with a 57% share if that's what they really want. The current tactics are disingenuous at best, delusional at worst.

 

[SJeasy]

The money will simply go elsewhere, to other businesses with other employees, who otherwise do worse when hockey is actually being played.

It's good for Joe Schmoe every bit as much as it is bad for Joe Schmoe - a wash.

I don't think it is that simple. I would opine that there is some economic deceleration due to the lockout. I do follow the line where it matters whether a $1 is turned over every 89 days instead of every 91 days as being good for the economy. I do think they will lose some acceleration of spending as well as some displacement. But yes, generically the $'s will be spent/invested elsewhere.

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

The thousands upon thousands of workers that have jobs during the hockey season. Newark is a prime example the area around the arena has blossomed and is quite nice now, so many new restaurants and bars and even a brand new hotel. Plus the workers in the arena. It is bad for Joe Schmoe.

The money going to that area and those businesses will now go to different areas and new businesses. Perhaps it's bad for Joe Schmoe's around the arena, but it's good for other Joe Schmoe's.

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

I don't think it is that simple. I would opine that there is some economic deceleration due to the lockout. I do follow the line where it matters whether a $1 is turned over every 89 days instead of every 91 days as being good for the economy. I do think they will lose some acceleration of spending as well as some displacement. But yes, generically the $'s will be spent/invested elsewhere.

Could be, but I'm curious why you think this. Is it that games occur on a weekly basis and bring in a steady flow of spending? Why would the alternative spending occur at a lower velocity?

 

[Ice-Tray]

The money going to that area and those businesses will now go to different areas and new businesses. Perhaps it's bad for Joe Schmoe's around the arena, but it's good for other Joe Schmoe's.

This is a ridiculous statement by you and that Dado poster. The loss of the season will affect these people massively. Dollars lost here will be spent there so it's a wash?? MOD

The people who will suffer are those whose jobs and business revolve around hockey (concessions, nearby pubs, etc...) money spent elsewhere will be going to businesses that have been surviving on income unrelated to hockey. What you should be claiming is that some people might have a better than normal year while others become unemployed... Not exactly a wash in my books.

MOD

 

[Fugu]

From the last negotiation where the players agreed to things they absolutely detested ( rollbacks and the cap), it turned out that things still worked pretty well for them. I'm just wondering if the PA takes this into account when they are asked to make more concessions or are they only focused on the specifics of the deal in front of them ?

What if the players cave in again this time and in another 8 years the owners cry that they still cant make a profit, what does that say about the viability of the teams that are in financial straits despite being able to dictate the terms of the CBA ?

Anything and everything can be negotiated. The players are using the last CBA as a premise for their proposals to the new on. The league has been more aggressive with what they want changed, not just player share but potentially the defintion of HRR, UFA age, ELC length and conditions, and so on.

I believe one reason the players want to hold the line this time is so you don't get a lockout every 7 yrs asking for more reductions in share. What it would indicate about the teams in financial trouble is that the league once again failed to design a system that focuses on the revenue disparity in the league -- which ultimately is the root of the weaker teams' woes.

 

[thestonedkoala]

The money going to that area and those businesses will now go to different areas and new businesses. Perhaps it's bad for Joe Schmoe's around the arena, but it's good for other Joe Schmoe's.

That's all well and good but what if they decide to save the money instead?

 

[mossey3535]

League Revenues increased by 74%, not 57%, basically in-line with the ceiling, (and the floor is a function of the ceiling.) That's predictable.

And people can argue about the right growth assumption, but the PA's 7% assumption is defendable as it's equal to what league saw under the previous deal. (I would model 3-5% for the outer years to be conservative, but again, 7% is not unreasonable)

Yeah but it's dependant on a strong Canadian dollar, which in a large part is due to the US economy being in the tank. I don't think that situation is going to last forever.

If the Canadian dollar lost any value, even 10%, player costs would instantly rise 10% and other costs would also get more expensive depending on how much is in USD. Meanwhile, the money coming in would lose 10%.

Considering the Canadian clubs are often cited as driving a lot of the league revenue, that would have an adverse effect on this magical 7% growth rate.

That's why there is a link to overall revenues, so that the system can absorb changes like this.

 

[Mike Jones]

That's all well and good but what if they decide to save the money instead?

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

They should just trim the bottom feeder teams. If they got rid of two, four or even six teams, the talent would be more concentrated for the teams that do earn money, and dispersed fans would likely find new teams to cheer for, meaning more money for the remaining teams.

Or move teams that don't make any money into markets where they would. My homer vote goes to anywhere in Canada, but a franchise in Seattle would be really interesting too.

Ya, the NHLPA would totally back a plan that would cause hundreds of players to lose their jobs.

 

[pepty]

Damien Cox suggests a change in strategy for the NHPA:

http://www.thestar.com/sports/baseball/mlb/article/1264734--blue-jays-injury-alibi-loses-steam-cox

If the NHLPA really wants to open a PR offensive, it should have individual players openly questioning the motives of individual owners. Just slamming Gary Bettman will never work. He’s paid to take the crap. But if Brad Richards starts questioning why James Dolan needs to have a lockout, or if Claude Giroux takes some verbal swings at Ed Snider, or if Zdeno Chara challenges Jeremy Jacobs to explain himself, it might turn public pressure on those owners in the same way it used to do in the pre-cap era when owners were often questioned for not spending enough.Blaming Bettman for a third lockout — like the PA had nothing at all to do with all three — won’t get the union anywhere if it wants to wage a propaganda war . .

 

[SixStringAddict]

Damien Cox suggests a change in strategy for the NHPA:

http://www.thestar.com/sports/baseball/mlb/article/1264734--blue-jays-injury-alibi-loses-steam-cox

If the NHLPA really wants to open a PR offensive, it should have individual players openly questioning the motives of individual owners. Just slamming Gary Bettman will never work. He’s paid to take the crap. But if Brad Richards starts questioning why James Dolan needs to have a lockout, or if Claude Giroux takes some verbal swings at Ed Snider, or if Zdeno Chara challenges Jeremy Jacobs to explain himself, it might turn public pressure on those owners in the same way it used to do in the pre-cap era when owners were often questioned for not spending enough.Blaming Bettman for a third lockout — like the PA had nothing at all to do with all three — won’t get the union anywhere if it wants to wage a propaganda war . .

I don't think thats a great idea. The owners pay their salaries. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

 

[SJeasy]

Could be, but I'm curious why you think this. Is it that games occur on a weekly basis and bring in a steady flow of spending? Why would the alternative spending occur at a lower velocity?

In what I have read on economic velocity, you tend to get higher velocity at the lower end of the economic spectrum. Example being restaurant workers, ushers, etc. The people who are spending on hockey tend to come from a higher economic tier. Put more money in the hands of the relatively low end and you get a little better on the economy as a whole (I suspect it only works up to a point). There are also industries that tend to accelerate or decelerate by themselves. Manufacturing is near the top of the list for acceleration. Industries that put tangible product (military product is a notable exception in this regard, it just sits on the shelf) into the system. Hockey and its anciliary businesses don't work so well in this regard.

 

[Nalens Oga]

Damien Cox suggests a change in strategy for the NHPA:

http://www.thestar.com/sports/baseball/mlb/article/1264734--blue-jays-injury-alibi-loses-steam-cox

If the NHLPA really wants to open a PR offensive, it should have individual players openly questioning the motives of individual owners. Just slamming Gary Bettman will never work. He’s paid to take the crap. But if Brad Richards starts questioning why James Dolan needs to have a lockout, or if Claude Giroux takes some verbal swings at Ed Snider, or if Zdeno Chara challenges Jeremy Jacobs to explain himself, it might turn public pressure on those owners in the same way it used to do in the pre-cap era when owners were often questioned for not spending enough.Blaming Bettman for a third lockout — like the PA had nothing at all to do with all three — won’t get the union anywhere if it wants to wage a propaganda war . .

Gary Bettman would then just allow the owners to speak via a carefully planned and eloquent statement on the team's site "to the fans" probably written by someone other than the owner and then approved by the owner.

Man, if people fought tax hikes as hard as the PA fights roll-backs....(I only apply that to useless tax hikes, obviously some taxes if they're used for good are good to have).

 

[JAX]

Damien Cox suggests a change in strategy for the NHPA:

http://www.thestar.com/sports/baseball/mlb/article/1264734--blue-jays-injury-alibi-loses-steam-cox

If the NHLPA really wants to open a PR offensive, it should have individual players openly questioning the motives of individual owners. Just slamming Gary Bettman will never work. He’s paid to take the crap. But if Brad Richards starts questioning why James Dolan needs to have a lockout, or if Claude Giroux takes some verbal swings at Ed Snider, or if Zdeno Chara challenges Jeremy Jacobs to explain himself, it might turn public pressure on those owners in the same way it used to do in the pre-cap era when owners were often questioned for not spending enough.Blaming Bettman for a third lockout — like the PA had nothing at all to do with all three — won’t get the union anywhere if it wants to wage a propaganda war . .

Since the owners have a gag order it won't really be a debate, besides it's a ludicris idea anyhow, every owner has different agenda's

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

I don't think thats a great idea. The owners pay their salaries. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Guaranteed contracts make it so the players don't care if they bite the hand that feeds them. They can say and do whatever they want, they can't be fired.