-
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
brucewaynegretzky
Member
Do you know what people are talking about when they say the "labor movement?" Honest question.
Mike Works
Member
I'll lay out the basics (though the issue is obviously more complex):
There was a lockout 8 years ago for various issues. The financial health of the league and lack of salary cap being the primary one. When all was said and done, the players took the vast majority of concessions. This is mainly due to the fact that the owners' resolve and bargaining was stronger, but regardless, the players took the cap and they took lowered salaries.
Over the past 7 years, the NHL has reported terrific revenue, at least compared to what they established before the '05 lockout. Last year alone, the league made $3.3 billion in revenue.
So clearly the players should have to take more cuts in salary.
Where is the logic here? If the league is hurting in any financial matter, is it because of the players? Or is it because of certain teams being in certain markets? Sure, if player salaries were lower then perhaps teams like Phoenix and Columbus wouldn't lose as much money, but are player salaries the heart of the matter?
I don't see it that way, not at all. The league's financial position has improved dramatically since the concessions that the players made in the last lockout. I was on the owner's side more that last lockout, since I could only see benefits in implementing a cap system.
Do I think the players should take a cut in revenue sharing in this lockout? Perhaps, perhaps not. It's a negotiation, and so long as you don't have Bob Goodenow helming your ship, they'll probably wind up reaching a compromise.
But right now they're being asked to make far too many heavy, heavy concessions to get the owners out of a problem that was primarily created by themselves and by the league and its head office.
There was a lockout 8 years ago for various issues. The financial health of the league and lack of salary cap being the primary one. When all was said and done, the players took the vast majority of concessions. This is mainly due to the fact that the owners' resolve and bargaining was stronger, but regardless, the players took the cap and they took lowered salaries.
Over the past 7 years, the NHL has reported terrific revenue, at least compared to what they established before the '05 lockout. Last year alone, the league made $3.3 billion in revenue.
So clearly the players should have to take more cuts in salary.
Where is the logic here? If the league is hurting in any financial matter, is it because of the players? Or is it because of certain teams being in certain markets? Sure, if player salaries were lower then perhaps teams like Phoenix and Columbus wouldn't lose as much money, but are player salaries the heart of the matter?
I don't see it that way, not at all. The league's financial position has improved dramatically since the concessions that the players made in the last lockout. I was on the owner's side more that last lockout, since I could only see benefits in implementing a cap system.
Do I think the players should take a cut in revenue sharing in this lockout? Perhaps, perhaps not. It's a negotiation, and so long as you don't have Bob Goodenow helming your ship, they'll probably wind up reaching a compromise.
But right now they're being asked to make far too many heavy, heavy concessions to get the owners out of a problem that was primarily created by themselves and by the league and its head office.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
O god... you're trying to make economic sense. Don't do it. Back away slowly. This is like throwing chum in the water.
Don't you know? Phoenix should be pulling in 10m a year in profit regardless of how many people show up.
Yeah, it's for people who fought against corporate entities to prevent slave like conditions at jobs they worked at for a living
Not teams they played a game for.
Just because it looks somewhat comparable doesn't mean it is. And it's also a reason why the nhlpa isn't identified as a labor union but a special interest group.
It's not a job.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
You're an idiot.
CrazedArabMan
Member
I think people in this country are more worried about actually getting a job no matter what at this moment.
Cool. You think I'm an idiot. It still doesn't make you any closer to being correct.
CrazedArabMan
Member
This is the first post in a long time from you that makes sense.
KernelPanic
Member
League revenues are at all time high but costs are high as well, guess what the #1 cost is ? The players, and not just their salaries but travel and other benefits. Hard to run a profitable business as player salaries climb.
Players aren't preventing growth but they're the #1 cost of the league and if leagues like the NFL and NBA give their players 50 %, Bettman is sitting in his office thinking why the fuck are we giving away 57% when we're nowhere near as popular as NBA or the NFL ? That's why we're here.
The real problem is asymmetrical revenue growth. All of the growth (and profit) of the NHL comes from the Canadian teams and the few big US markets, the rest of US doesn't give a shit about hockey but hey let's just give the players more money and better hotel rooms that will fix everything.
Revenue <> profit
When business aren't doing well (or as well as the owners would like they cut costs). Players are the #1 cost (should they fire a bunch of ushers and hot dog vendors making minimum wage instead ?)
Even if you get rid of the "loser teams" and move them to better markets you will always have disparity between the rich and poorer teams. That's when you increase revenue sharing but that money has to come from somewhere and you can't expect the big teams to give up all their profits to prop up the rest of the league.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
The bottom line is simple labor economics, though. The dollars are higher because you're dealing with a smaller pool and it's an entertainment market, but the basic economics of collective bargaining are the same.
People are used to talking about unions in the public sector nowadays which have VASTLY different economic forces at play. I don't claim to be an expert on the subject, but I actually do have a decent amount of exposure to these basic analyses. At the end of the day every complaint lobbied against the PA makes no economic sense, while the owners are actually getting away with what are almost copy and paste republican talking points. The PA is acting in an economically rational manner. No one here seems willing to address the anti-trust implications of the league and the anti-competitive nature of the agreements the owners have with eachother. Instead they just get mad because players are rich.
League profits have been climbing. This is established fact. Dopey would have you believe this is due solely to the strength of the canadian dollar, but somehow the league was able to command a much better TV deal this time around as well and the league has seen great attendance stats as well. But yeah.... all the canadian dollar.
KernelPanic
Member
Per some dude on HFboards:
That seems like a very workable counter proposal if true.
That seems like a very workable counter proposal if true.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
It would be alot better for teams that are currently cap heavy, that's for sure.
BigJonsson
Member
All players get a base salary based on years of service, and then set bonuses based on performance, then maybe I will see them as an actual union
brucewaynegretzky
Member
Wat? Again, this is just fucking ridiculous and makes no sense.
BigJonsson
Member
Yeah, THANKS OBAMA.
Then why do you keep acting like one and constantly talk down to people that don't agree with you? Just because your novel exposure to these "basic analyses" coincides with this lockout doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't agree with you is therefore ignorant.
KernelPanic
Member
League profits have been climbing yes, but again it's only the top 8-10 teams responsible for those profits, the rest of the teams are barely breaking even and some are bleeding money. And most of those teams are in Canada (who wouldn't be doing anywhere near as well if the Canadian dollar wasn't so strong so it is a factor).
The NHL US TV is the best one they ever got but it's a joke compared to what NFL and MLB get. If the league is doing so well then more than 8-10 teams should be in the black.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
Because saying things like "It's not a job" and talking about what players "deserve" outside of any real economic analysis goes far beyond the level of willful ignorance that is so commonly bashed on Gaf when it comes to any other economic topic. It's NOT RATIONAL. I'm all for talking about what the economics of the situation dictate but talking about "fair" 50/50 splits is just dumb. Its relying on an assumption that players should just be happy with half that's not based in anything other than a sense that athletes should just be happy to get paid.
BigJonsson
Member
Get rid of the cap and the floor
Let the profitable teams spend money........or not spend money
The star players salaries may go even higher but the shitty players will see their money disappear as teams like Florida don't have to go on a spending spree to meet the minimum
Let the profitable teams spend money........or not spend money
The star players salaries may go even higher but the shitty players will see their money disappear as teams like Florida don't have to go on a spending spree to meet the minimum
CrazedArabMan
Member
Hey, just saying a lot of unemployed right now who just want to find work where they can get it, never put a blame on anyone.
KernelPanic
Member
That's what we had before the last lockout and looks where it got them.
You'd be looking at contraction down the road, no one will buy tickets for the smaller markets when they'd just become farm teams for the rich teams.
Right now the smaller markets have a good chance to keep their top players and keep their fans interested.
CrazedArabMan
Member
I'm just joking around man
Why must you tease me so sir, why!?!?
brucewaynegretzky
Member
Have I ever said I'm completely against reductions in salaries? You're absolutely right that the economic well being of the league could be improved. I'd disagree that teams should just be entitled to a profit, I think at the end of the day the NHL has a monopoly so those teams are pretty much guaranteed to exist because they have a collusive environment that props them up so there's no need to be worried about how many teams are making large profits as long as the league is profitable. However, player salaries could come down. They could probably stay the same and the league would survive. However, what I'm NOT ok with is the league forcing the players to pay for shitty management decisions like PHX and CBJ. Those are FIXABLE problems. If I were the PA I wouldn't agree to any deal that I thought would allow the league to keep on fucking up as much as it wanted without facing any financial burden because they don't have to compete with anyone. In a real market if you did that a competitor would come along and make better decisions with the same labor environment and put you out of business. Instead the NHL has created an anticompetitive market where they can't be unseated from their market position, so the PA needs to attempt to enforce some market pressure.
KingHenrik30
Member
MSG is reshowing Ranger games from last season, showing one playing in Winnepeg right now, what a bunch of first-timers in that group of fans. They're booing Richards....why? Act like you've had a team before.
They booed one player per team during the season. I thought it was kinda funny. They booed Thornton when the Sharks played there and he was enjoying the hell out of it
KingHenrik30
Member
They booed one player per team during the season. I thought it was kinda funny. They booed Thornton when the Sharks played there and he was enjoying the hell out of it
Makes them look like a bunch of amateurs
SuperSonic1305
Member
They booed multiple Leafs players. That means we are better than the rest.
"Theyve been exposed. This team is an out and out embarrasment. Fuck them. Seriously I'm done. Count this as an official give up on the season for me. Even if they win the cup I won't even celebrate. Mark it down. I'm done."
hmmmmm
And just because you brought it up
I did the math, if revenue was distributed equally... as of last year.... Every team would profit approx $6 million. Not nearly enough to accrue capital necessary for long term success (arena projects could not be funded from a self sufficient NHL entity at $6mil per)
As I've stated earlier in the thread, it isn't the bad markets that is screwing things up. They were actually saving the NHL as their revenue was so poor, it put a direct negative impact on the cap. The problem was never the bad markets, it was the Canadian markets meteoric rise due to the massive exchange rate fluctuation from 2004 to 2012. Since all contracts are paid in USD but Canadian markets get money in CDN, their was an expansion on profit and compression on expenses while on American side of the sport... There was compression on operating profits (until operating loss) and expansion of expenses. Basically what happened is the NHL flipped from Canada having poor franchise health to the USA having poor franchise health.
$3.3 billion is still $110 million per team on average.
$40 million after player costs, before flights for players (with a rocketing fuel price), before the players hotel costs, before their equipment, before their insurance costs, before arena expenses (rent/leases, building workers) and before team personnel - GMs, coaches, trainers, scouts, doctors (NHL uses private medical too so that's even more $$$), marketers/advertisers, PR, etc etc etc - that money shrinks really fast. Then you add in the fact that its upwardly skewed to the Canadian teams, Detroit, NYR, Boston, Philadelphia. Has nothing to do with poor markets, it's strictly the player share is far too high.
This is why the NHL has been trying to adjust what HRR means to actually reflect, you know, revenue related to hockey instead of things like concessions or parking which are more mandatory for being able to run the building or pay the lease instead of having 57% of it assigned to players. This is why you are seeing desperate attempts implementing fused casinos and whatever.
People get caught up on big numbers or suggest there is a way to profitability via revenue sharing. Those people aren't wrong, but unfortunately the money it brings in isn't enough to maintain viability as a league as a whole. Yes, it would be great to have every team making more money, but the players need to be hit first and foremost. The other costs are not something that can be controlled (ie static costs...) unless they start purging their marketing and advertising departments and end up like the Florida panthers.
The players keep using the MLB as their "framework" for success. The MLB has $7 bil revenue, yes? Player costs are only $2.9 billion ($1 billion more than NHL players with $3.7 billion more revenue) which is 41.5% of revenue!!!. What is the nfl salary cap? 35% of revenue!!! what is the nba salary cap? 40% of revenue!!
So when the NHL offers 50% and you look at the other leagues... The players can outright go fuck themselves.
BigJonsson
Member
Give the players what they want, contract some teams
brucewaynegretzky
Member
Why does every team deserve to be making a profit at all times?
3.3 billion is hockey related revenue, are you claiming the teams have no other revenue sources? How much do those revenues cover?
How sure are you of those numbers from other leagues? I'm fairly confident the NBA is at 49.5%. NFL is higher as well I think.
Looking at other leagues for comparison is fine, but we're also seeing growth at the current level. Why not just leave it the same and continue to grow? I'm not saying salaries HAVE to keep this %, but why not?
You claim the small markets are helping, but why not just cut the losses entirely by moving them to profitable markets and INSTANTLY increasing revenue, and profits? On top of that you have less teams that require revenue sharing.
These are all BASIC questions the league refuses to address and instead just continually asks for reductions without any rhyme or reason.
3.3 billion is hockey related revenue, are you claiming the teams have no other revenue sources? How much do those revenues cover?
How sure are you of those numbers from other leagues? I'm fairly confident the NBA is at 49.5%. NFL is higher as well I think.
Looking at other leagues for comparison is fine, but we're also seeing growth at the current level. Why not just leave it the same and continue to grow? I'm not saying salaries HAVE to keep this %, but why not?
You claim the small markets are helping, but why not just cut the losses entirely by moving them to profitable markets and INSTANTLY increasing revenue, and profits? On top of that you have less teams that require revenue sharing.
These are all BASIC questions the league refuses to address and instead just continually asks for reductions without any rhyme or reason.
KernelPanic
Member
1) No one's saying they deserve guaranteed profits but I don't think they deserve ever increasing losses either.
Some do some don't, it's all laid out in the definition of HRR
There's no guarantee that revenues will continue at this rate, they're pretty much guaranteed to drop or flatline after a work stoppage which is where we're at.
If the current % was fine there wouldn't be so many teams in the red and it would only get worse over time under the past system, might as well rein things in a bit. Lowering the player's % leads to more revenue sharing as well which benefits the players. Are the owners supposed to offer more % to the players ? The owners will always try and strip money from the players and the players will always try and get more money from the owners. Ultimately they're supposed to sit down, compromise and work out a deal before they damage the very business their livelihood depends on.
Move them to where exactly ? You make it sound like there's tons of great potential NHL locations. Phoenix is the only that can (and will) be easily moved because the league owns them. Why should the NHL buy out existing ownership and move teams when they can try and stabilize things in a new CBA to help those and make even more money charging big expansion fees to teams in Quebec and Toronto ?
NFL players get between 47%-48.5%
NBA is $58 million http://www.nba.com/2012/news/07/10/nba-salary-cap-release/index.html so with 30 teams thats with $1.74 billion on top of $4.3 billion in revenue... 40.4% (teams can go over)
Nfl cap is $120 million http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nf...l-salary-cap-set-120-6-million-211140326.html so with 32 teams....3.86 billion on top of $9.5 billion in revenue. 40% on the button. (Teams cannot go over)
MLB numbers are me taking the reported revenue for the league and adding all salaries together (rounding up to next million for every team so it's actually lower)
And as someone who advocates for teams in different markets... I've discussed this before where they could move like 4 franchises and they'd have to purge so many teams after that because at 57% the cap would surge astronomically high. Say you move a team to quebec, to toronto, to hamilton, to seattle. that would increase revenues right there bare minimum $300 million on gate receipts alone. the cap then slides up another $6-10 million, then the merch sales kick in and the tv deals for those new markets kick in, the cap slides up another $6-10 million. so now we are at the point where players are getting paid upwards of $90 million per team and the floor is around $70 million. What happens to the teams that were healthy before? That's a jump from the average player salary from $2 million to $3-3.5. (Max around $4.5)
Remember, 18 teams lost money. You can't expect every team to perform like the canadiens or the leafs. They'd still be artificially raising the floor. The new teams would make the middle teams bankrupt (so to speak) at a snap of the finger. Basically making them unsellable assets (see: coyotes)
The problem isn't the markets, it's the player %. Without the extra leeway, the teams in those markets (basically the bottom 15) can't actively advertise the game. Just existing isn't good enough. It needs a solid fucking presence. It's the NHLs largest problem by far. If player costs were to go down to the other 3 leagues rates, sure... Owners would pocket some, yes... But there'd be a LOT more investment. You drop to that level, revenue sharing is a lot easier. It takes money to make money and unfortunately, the players aren't the only way to advertise the game.
The CBA has become a really complicated mess and the NHL with it.
And for growth... Remember Canadian dollar, 2 years ago was NBC deal and jets was last year. Revenue gains were about to hit a brick wall. The lockout was absolutely necessary because if NHL extended, nhlpa would option the $70.2 mil cap which would be a projection of $3.7 billion in revenue ($2.1 billion player share, $500 mil more than nba) - players would have striked next year anyways because the money would have went into escrow and never paid back (the mechanism for cap increase is based on previous year gain so they'd be overpaying big time due to rev plateau)
I do understand where the players are coming from but they need perspective. They don't realize that they are inadvertently killing the league they play for.
Always thinking in the now.
Oh and yes every team should be ABLE to profit. Right now there are teams without a real avenue of profiting.
EDIT SOORRRRY had wrong nfl rev fig. Still 40%
BigJonsson
Member
What really matters is what Tim Thomas has to say about this
Yeah just from somebody who hasn't always been a big fan of hockey a lot of reinvestment in markets they're already in with advertisements and the like would go a long way to expanding the league i think.
I would say move phoenix to Quebec City (that's just not a good place to make money) but apart from that i think a lot of advertising in the south and the south east would be a boon for the NHL and really grow the league immensely with these teams that are only marginally successful.
And get it on ESPN or somewhere i know i'll get it. Get me some frigging monday night football crap. Saturday night hockey after the big college FB games or something. Something, just make it visible so people can actually get interested.