-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NHL Lockout With Your Cock Out |OT|
- Thread starter Marvie_3
- Start date
yankeehater
Member
I dont see how it is union busting if they get the players together and say "here is a deal we feel is fair, it is our last offer so if you dont sign it then we are done". If they really wanted to break the union they wouldnt be compromising at all. Trying to get a deal done without Fehr seems like smart business to me, he is clearly hear to win at all costs and doesnt seem to care if there is a season or not.
SpectreFire
Member
You mean the good graces of the Maple Leafs.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
You've said all teams should be ABLE to be profitable, and that has been based on their historic financial performance. PHX and CBJ's performance do not warrant sustaining those teams by reducing cost.
You've mad the argument that moving those teams would artificially raise the floor too much to start hurting other teams, but we saw in Winnipeg this year that isn't necessarily what happens. It very well might just improve the financial health of the league, but to you it's preferable to just reduce salary costs and maintain those franchises. I fundamentally disagree.
Then there's the whole "it's not a job" line....
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
C'mon we all saw the timeline from the past few days, little Fehr was there and the PA was running all offers by big Fehr. The line of trying to push the players without representation is BS.
Plus the stuff you listed (pension, make whole) was agreed contingent on the NHL getting CBA term and player contract term. They are NOT close on this. The league presented a packaged deal with concessions on both sides, the PA ignored the "package" part and tried to line-item choose what they wanted.
I think there will be 1 more push on make whole again but it will be off the table soon.
yankeehater
Member
I thought we were all arguing what is best for the sport. In a perfect world ticket prices would be way lower and neither side would be raking in billions, but that isnt going to happen. Out of the 2 sides I think the owners offer does way more to perserve the long term health of the league.
KernelPanic
Member
Every time the league has said this is our final offer, they made a better one later. You can't blame Fehr. His job is to get the best deal he can get. So the NHL made an offer and he made a counteroffer, that's negotiating. He's agreed to 50/50, linked, contract limits, back-diving, he's just trying to get better terms for the players, what's wrong with that ?
The owners have already won, all their major requirements are there. For the last few months Fehr has refused ANY limits on contracts and now he's offering 8. That sounds like caving in to me. It's not as low as 5 so Bettman throws a shit fit when they can negotiate a 6-7 limit, is that such a big deal ?
As for Fehr, yes I he does want to win at all costs, that's what they hired him for. I don't believe the players will let him lose a season. Most of the union cannot afford to lose a year of salary or a year out of their career, no matter what they say. They will revolt if they have to.
AngmarsKing701
Member
Ok, BWG, I get the whole Glendale/Columbus argument. BUT if the league contracts because you're unable to make a profit in certain locations, then you just put 40+ players -- and their AHL affiliates -- along with umpteen staff, arena workers, parking lot attendants, etc. out of work.
Wouldn't the players WANT more teams in the league? More teams means more players, more opportunities, etc.
Or is the argument that if a particular location can't turn a profit that it should be moved to a more profitable location vs. contracted? If the former, how long do you need league subsidies before you are considered a hazard to the league and must be re-located? Not be profitable for 3 years straight? 7 out of 10 years? I mean, there would need to be criteria.
I personally don't understand the league's insistence on keeping a team in AZ. I think moving that team to either Canada or Seattle makes sense because either of those locations is going to be more profitable than AZ.
But Columbus? I mean, you could argue that's just been mis-managed. How can you have teams in PA and MI being successful but Ohio isn't? To me that's not a location problem.
Wouldn't the players WANT more teams in the league? More teams means more players, more opportunities, etc.
Or is the argument that if a particular location can't turn a profit that it should be moved to a more profitable location vs. contracted? If the former, how long do you need league subsidies before you are considered a hazard to the league and must be re-located? Not be profitable for 3 years straight? 7 out of 10 years? I mean, there would need to be criteria.
I personally don't understand the league's insistence on keeping a team in AZ. I think moving that team to either Canada or Seattle makes sense because either of those locations is going to be more profitable than AZ.
But Columbus? I mean, you could argue that's just been mis-managed. How can you have teams in PA and MI being successful but Ohio isn't? To me that's not a location problem.
Too bad that's exactly what he's going to do within the next 4 weeks unless he caves.
KernelPanic
Member
And I think he will cave, he's been slowly caving in the whole time. He's just not going to do it until the last minute.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
Those are all legit questions, but the union doesn't get to manage the league, and it shouldn't. But it also doesn't have to agree to pay for poor management decisions (aka telling these teams "You need to fix these things or we're moving you.")
Not every team should be profitable every year. In no other sector do we say, every business that opens should have a chance to be profitable or whatever Dopey wants. We say if you're competitive then you will thrive. The league is different because we want a league around the country and for it to be entertaining, but maybe the cost of that is lower profits across the league? The reason we don't talk about this is because big teams aren't about to go sharing their profits. Dopey hasn't addressed my argument about tying revenue sharing to profits ONCE. I think that's pretty telling. I think if you want a league where every team benefits from having a structure where they all support eachother then profits should be shared amongst the teams. Rich teams have an obligation to support the poor teams that prop them up by showing up and getting walloped all the time.
Dopey's pointed out that if you did universal rev share the profits per team would be about 4m a year a piece or something ridiculously low. Well how high should they be? Maybe a few teams should be losing money every year and the big name teams shouldn't be pulling in so much more. These are important questions that everyone seems to ignore because they want teams where they are and they want everyone competitive. Those are important goals, but I still say they've been taken to unreasonable extremes. The league is profitable. Cut the fat and share the wealth.
Do you understand what it means "able to profit"?
Do you think New Jersey, Florida, Tampa, San Jose, Columbus, Phoenix, New York Isles, Anaheim, Dallas, St. Louis, Carolina, Nashville, Colorado should keep losing money as they CURRENTLY do?
Oh no, let's keep pandering to toronto, New York Rangers, Montreal, Vancouver, Detroit, Boston, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Lets give the players a raise which would put teams like Buffalo, Ottawa, Edmonton, Calgary, Minnesota, Winnipeg under ridiculous pressure!
Or let's revenue share so every team gets $5 million! Less than their best player! Less than their 2nd or 3rd best player! These teams that all operate in arenas that cost $100s of millions to build!
They should spend every dollar they earn on new arenas! It will only take about 100 years for every team to afford a new arena... But something tells me that the cost will be much higher than $500 million in 100 years!
No, let's not move the player share down to sensible levels! We don't use logic here!
Let's just blame everything on Columbus and Phoenix though! It's entirely those 2 teams fault that half the league (arguably over half) is losing money
Market forces! Free market! Fox News! Vote republican!
Don't worry, brucewaynegretzky is mitt romney! He knows how to fix the system!
Fun fact! If you were to take MLBs current player share and put it against NHL revenues (while balancing it perfectly towards 30 teams) the entire league INCLUDING the coyotes would be profitable! Shocking, eh? That goes to show even the lowest team in hockey is theoretically more healthy than say the Oakland As
brucewaynegretzky
Member
Honest question, where are you getting your stats on player share? I've been looking around and haven't found the same numbers as you. I saw numbers claiming the NFL players are getting 55% just the other day. Also, you regularly compare the bargained for number and the effective number without clarifying which is which. Remember a pure 50% cut would probably come out less at an effective rate because not every team would pay to the cap.
You act like every team making $5m is such a bad thing. Maybe NHL teams SHOULD be making that. Maybe teams' values are over inflated because they aren't including the cost of how they SHOULD be supporting the league that drives their value.
Like I've said, no other sector assumes that you SHOULD make any level of profit. I find that logic kind of insane. Also no other league has the kind of wealth disparity that the NHL has, but you regularly ignore that and act as if comparing these things are perfect comparisons when they're not.
You act like every team making $5m is such a bad thing. Maybe NHL teams SHOULD be making that. Maybe teams' values are over inflated because they aren't including the cost of how they SHOULD be supporting the league that drives their value.
Like I've said, no other sector assumes that you SHOULD make any level of profit. I find that logic kind of insane. Also no other league has the kind of wealth disparity that the NHL has, but you regularly ignore that and act as if comparing these things are perfect comparisons when they're not.
-They found a bunch of rubes willing to pay for most of the losses of the team.
-Glendale built them an arena less than a decade ago. It makes it harder for other teams to get new arenas if they can point to Glendale and say the NHL can bail at anytime and leave the city with an empty arena.
KernelPanic
Member
I don't think the league is in such dire shape. Some teams lose or gain little money in terms of HRR but they profit off their arena which isn't included in HRR. Don't forget the definition of HRR favors the owners, not all revenue is there nor should it be. There's a few teams in bottom in real trouble, and those are teams that don't own their arean or have a shitty lease that gets them little revenues from the arena. Even a team like Florida loses money but they make $20-30M a year from all the events at the BT&T arena, which they wouldn't get if they didn't own the Panthers. I am not an accountant but I think it favors the owners to be able to show a loss on paper for tax purposes. I think the Sens actually made a few million in profit off our surprising season last time and our owner was pissed off to no end.
The other teams in the middle are probably OK but if salaries keep escalating they will be in trouble which is why they have to lock things down now. Ultimately according to Bettman and Daly, the NHL just feels they are paying too much on principle based on the deals that the NFL and NBA got (and they're all represented by the same law firm).
This is mostly a cash grab shakedown by the owners, helping teams in trouble is important but secondary.
You brought something like this up before and were corrected on it before.
http://nflcommunications.com/2011/07/21/nfl-clubs-approve-comprehensive-agreement/
NFL players are only guaranteed 47%
brucewaynegretzky
Member
So, Dopey let's just do a quick exercise:
How many players make over say 6m a year cap hit?
Do you think it's fair to say that would be a fair number if there was 100% rev share AND PHX was moved?
Look at those numbers. They're not that far apart. Do you think it could be fair to say that *gasp* being a truly elite hockey player is a skill that is comparable in demand to being a competent owner of a sports franchise?!
Being a premier player is a marketable skill just like any other. It should be valued as such. If the value of the NHL is such that each team averaged makes 5m in PROFIT with all costs paid for I don't see what the problem is. The profits aren't what are going into these arenas. Those are costs. They are factored in with everything else and since not every team is perpetually building a new arena I think its fair to say those costs are factored in.
Ok, so 47% is the floor.... now what's the cap?
How many players make over say 6m a year cap hit?
Do you think it's fair to say that would be a fair number if there was 100% rev share AND PHX was moved?
Look at those numbers. They're not that far apart. Do you think it could be fair to say that *gasp* being a truly elite hockey player is a skill that is comparable in demand to being a competent owner of a sports franchise?!
Being a premier player is a marketable skill just like any other. It should be valued as such. If the value of the NHL is such that each team averaged makes 5m in PROFIT with all costs paid for I don't see what the problem is. The profits aren't what are going into these arenas. Those are costs. They are factored in with everything else and since not every team is perpetually building a new arena I think its fair to say those costs are factored in.
Ok, so 47% is the floor.... now what's the cap?
bonesmccoy
Banned
That's true, and you wish that the players would remember that Bettman was hired to do the exact same thing.
Naw, he understood it, he just used the chance to do some PR stuff and set the narrative. And it seems to have worked as several sports writers have adopted the 'Fehr seemed genuinely surprised' explanation for last night's 2 press conferences.
It does seem that the owners uttered something to the effect of "This is it. Talk it over and let's meet tomorrow." But when it became clear that the meeting was going to see another counter-proposal, they left.
A bit hyperbolish but she's pretty bad. That stupid head turn that she does got old super fast. She can wrestle? All she's been is "eye candy". Yes, she's cute as hell but her character blows.Ever? That's a bit strong, man. Say what you will about her character, she can actually wrestle and has high cuteness factor.
Guys...is the NHL...going to die?
farooqdamn.gif
yankeehater
Member
Are you saying that the top player should be able to earn whatever a team is willing to pay them, but that the owners should be limited in terms of what teams can make?
brucewaynegretzky
Member
It's like a market system! Owners should be able to make whatever they can after paying the necessary costs, just like any other business. You can find plenty of examples of companies that aren't even profitable, but are paying certain employees large sums for their services.
KernelPanic
Member
We'll see what happens. If the league truly takes the make whole off the table then the season is done.
I still find it hard to believe both the NHL and the players will let another season go down the drain. They will figure something out at the last minute like they did in '94/95, neither side has enough pressure on them yet to get a deal done.
Wouldn't work unless the NHL contracts to an 8 team league. There is too much market disparity between the top and bottom clubs. Half the NHL would be farm teams for the top half of the league.
I don't think you could call that caving. He's been negotiating.
yankeehater
Member
What business is losing money but still pays large sums to employees? Corporate revenues are at an all time high and workers salaries are at an all time low.
AngmarsKing701
Member
They've got to know that they're getting close to having it to call it. If they don't get something by Christmas, then you're essentially into January. You have to assume a couple weeks for training camp. They were talking about a 55-60 game season if they got something signed this week.
If you don't have something by Christmas, then you're talking sub-50 games and it becomes ludicrous to even have a season at that point.
Right now the sides are pissed at each other and likely not talking. Hopefully cooler heads prevail and they get back at it next week but I don't have a lot of hope of that happening.
I believe this season is lost and that the owners will sharpen their blades and set to breaking the union going forward. I want to see the players suffer for this, because frankly I think this is all their fault. They "lost" last time (although 57% seems like a crazy solution to consider a loss) and they brought Fehr in to steel their courage.
Just saying No and No all over again isn't negotiating.
U.S. Government
KernelPanic
Member
Except there is no billion dollar TV contract. The NHL relies mostly on ticket sales, why would fans pay money to see a farm team that has no hope of winning anything when the Leafs and Rangers will scoop up their best players the moment they hit free agency, either through UFA or loaded offer sheets ?
You can have shit teams in baseball but they can still profit due to massive revenue sharing from TV deals. NHL's contract with NBC is a joke compared to what the NFL and MLB get, but it's still the best TV deal the league has ever gotten.
He's said the NHLPA will never accept any contract limits, now he's offering an 8 year limit. I'd say that's caving.
Kind of how years ago the players would NEVER accept a salary cap and yet here we are.;
yankeehater
Member
LOL to bad the NHL cant borrow money from China to pay the players.
..........if he's saying No and No all over again then how is he caving?
brucewaynegretzky
Member
How much do you think GM was paying senior staff when it was losing money? There are plenty of non-profs out there that pay their senior level employees up to 7 figures. Profits aren't the sole indicator of financial health. A company breaking even, and yes even losing money for a short period of time, can still be highly compensating some employees.
There are plenty of low margin businesses as well. Maybe it's time to realize hockey is just low-margin.
For the record, even I won't say the league ISN'T negotiating anymore. I thought there was a chance when I thought they were doing a "last best offer" in November which seemed nuts, but they've bargained since then. I'd just say their underlying principles are flawed.
The owners and Bettman have made massive compromises and gone back on their word, too. Are we going to call that caving? Both sides can't be caving. The word would lose all meaning. They're negotiating after starting very far apart in firm positions.
Anyway, semantics. I just think people let their hatred for Fehr distort reality at times.
KernelPanic
Member
I think some NFL or baseball (can't recall) get more than that.
One team gets more TV money than an entire league.
yankeehater
Member
I have no idea what GM's particular finances were but I dont want the NHL to be run that poorly. Congrats you found an example of a company that was so poorly run that the government had to bail them out. I doubt that the NHL can count on that happening.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
Yes, because GM is the only company to ever be unprofitable.
The LA Dodgers just signed a local tv deal that gets them about $6 billion over 25 years.(~$240M/year) They get that plus their share from all the national tv deals ($1B+/year if I remember correctly)
Leaving and taking their offer off the table was dumb when they were that close. Tell them to piss off and vote on it, but don't leave. Expecting the players to finalize an agreement without their representation their was dumb. These guys are hockey players, not lawyers.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Oh man, one of Penner's actual responses in defense of Fehr in his Twitter feed was:
LOL
Winkler, Manitoba's Best.
"Alright, Dustin. Does this contract language look acceptable to you?"
KernelPanic
Member
bonesmccoy
Banned
I'm not sure the 4 owners actually did ask the players to finalize the agreement without Fehr, or any other 'expert', present. It seems - from what we've heard - that the owners had said that they were making a final offer based on the week's bargaining discussions, and that they needed a yes or no. Not until it became clear that the players were going to make a counter-proposal (aka, say 'no') did the owners decide to leave.
edit: KP - I think Fehr does and I think he's right. Bettman and Daly's words about things being off the table are completely hollow. If the PA presents a slightly more owner-friendly version of that counter proposal, I think the owners will take it.