NHL CBA Talk

Cap'n Clutch wrote:The fact that the NHL is much more popular and that revenues grew such that the cap went from 39M to close to 70 tells me that the NHL has a lot to lose by locking the players out this time.

That was true during the last lockout as well and Bettman had no problems losing a season to get what he wanted.

NHL revenues grew but only the big market teams saw any of that money. I imagine most owners are more than OK to lose part or all of the season as they'd be losing money anyway.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:A 22% roll back in salaries. Bettman must think he has the players by the short and curlies to ask for another roll back of that magnitude.

I think it's a matter of we locked you out before, you caved, so we're doing it again.

Nasty and I don't think it works this time personally.

Remember this little exchange?

Neo - You won't let it happen, you can't. You need human beings to survive.

The Architect - There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept.

The owners can survive a lockout. Very likely the vast majority of players cannot. Most people are not mature enough to think about retirement until they are at an age where, in the NHL, you are pretty much on your last contract.

Owners are also greedy and even with the roll back, should the players eventually cave, the owners will see a major loss in revenues and loss of momentum. It's also terrible for the league to have lock-outs in two consecutive contracts especially for the 4th (arguably lower) major league sport. This will also be the third work stoppage since Bettman took over should it come to that.

wprager wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:A 22% roll back in salaries. Bettman must think he has the players by the short and curlies to ask for another roll back of that magnitude.

I think it's a matter of we locked you out before, you caved, so we're doing it again.

Nasty and I don't think it works this time personally.

Remember this little exchange?

Neo - You won't let it happen, you can't. You need human beings to survive.

The Architect - There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept.

The owners can survive a lockout. Very likely the vast majority of players cannot. Most people are not mature enough to think about retirement until they are at an age where, in the NHL, you are pretty much on your last contract.

Ya, the average NHL salary was $2.4M in 2010-11. You're saying that the vast majority of these people who made $2.4M the year before can't survive a lockout? I'm not questioning the part about maturity, but maybe "survive" wasn't the best word choice. Even if there is a lockout, I'm sure we won't be hearing about too many NHL players going bankrupt.

spader wrote:
Ya, the average NHL salary was $2.4M in 2010-11. You're saying that the vast majority of these people who made $2.4M the year before can't survive a lockout? I'm not questioning the part about maturity, but maybe "survive" wasn't the best word choice. Even if there is a lockout, I'm sure we won't be hearing about too many NHL players going bankrupt.

Bankrupt ? probably not but I can't imagine they'll be too happy playing in the KHL/AHL/SEL etc. next year.

Ultimately both sides are greedy, owners think they hold all the cards in this case.

Like I said earlier I'm not convinced the league can afford yet another lock-out. It makes the league look like a joke and people will expect a lock-out every time the contract comes up for negotiation. That is terrible for business.

Assuming they get business back, the ones they get back will time their TV deals, Season Seat packages and so on to end when the next contract ends.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:Owners are also greedy and even with the roll back, should the players eventually cave, the owners will see a major loss in revenues and loss of momentum. It's also terrible for the league to have lock-outs in two consecutive contracts especially for the 4th (arguably lower) major league sport. This will also be the third work stoppage since Bettman took over should it come to that.

I believe it would be 3 consecutive contracts -- isn't it?

Hoags wrote:

spader wrote:
Ya, the average NHL salary was $2.4M in 2010-11. You're saying that the vast majority of these people who made $2.4M the year before can't survive a lockout? I'm not questioning the part about maturity, but maybe "survive" wasn't the best word choice. Even if there is a lockout, I'm sure we won't be hearing about too many NHL players going bankrupt.

Bankrupt ? probably not but I can't imagine they'll be too happy playing in the KHL/AHL/SEL etc. next year.

Ultimately both sides are greedy, owners think they hold all the cards in this case.

I wasn't suggesting that it would be their best option, or that they'd be happy. I was balking at wprager's comment that the vast majority of NHL players wouldn't survive a lockout. It was a ridiculous comment.

It was *not* a ridiculous statement.

Agent fee is 15%, income tax another 30-40%. Half the money is gone right off the top. And these guys likely spend like there's no tomorrow. Gambling, investments. And that $2.4M is skewed to begin with. A lot of them make around minimum or less (those on two-way contracts).

Why do you think so many of them ended up playing in Europe during the lockout?

Here's an idea:

DON"T have an agent.

DON'T live extravagantly.

Make smart investments.

Get a good accountant.

Riprock wrote:Here's an idea:

DON"T have an agent.

DON'T live extravagantly.

Make smart investments.

Get a good accountant.

Some of them are not that mature.

Some of those accountants or financial advisors lose all their money.

Smart Investments require smart investors or smart advices.

wprager wrote:

Riprock wrote:Here's an idea:

DON"T have an agent.

DON'T live extravagantly.

Make smart investments.

Get a good accountant.

Some of them are not that mature.

Some of those accountants or financial advisors lose all their money.

Smart Investments require smart investors or smart advices.

Where can I get me some of them smart advices?

sandysensfan wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:Owners are also greedy and even with the roll back, should the players eventually cave, the owners will see a major loss in revenues and loss of momentum. It's also terrible for the league to have lock-outs in two consecutive contracts especially for the 4th (arguably lower) major league sport. This will also be the third work stoppage since Bettman took over should it come to that.

I believe it would be 3 consecutive contracts -- isn't it?

Not sure about that. The initial one was a strike by the players in 95 then the lock-out was 2004/05 right. Was there only one contract from 95 to 2004?

wprager wrote:It was *not* a ridiculous statement.

Agent fee is 15%, income tax another 30-40%. Half the money is gone right off the top. And these guys likely spend like there's no tomorrow. Gambling, investments. And that $2.4M is skewed to begin with. A lot of them make around minimum or less (those on two-way contracts).

Why do you think so many of them ended up playing in Europe during the lockout?

Because they wanted to continue to live extravagantly and because they wanted to continue to get paid to play the game they've devoted their lives to. I don't think they were there because it was the only way to avoid financial ruin, at least for the "vast majority".

I stand by what I said -- most NHL players cannot afford to not get paid (oh, they'll survive, no problem there -- most of them can still move back in with their parents) but you can bet that *most of them* would really, really rather not sit out. And it's the ones making above the $2.4M average that are really making all the calls.

They won't be going on strike, or lock out, or w/e. The worst case scenario is the season starts a little late, that's it. People are starting to make a mountain out of a mole hill right now.

NEELY wrote:They won't be going on strike, or lock out, or w/e. The worst case scenario is the season starts a little late, that's it. People are starting to make a mountain out of a mole hill right now.

NHL wants concessions from players to fix the problems with poor teams and ever rising salary cap.

The NHLPA will argue that all we need is more revenue sharing, rich teams like the Leafs are NOT going to agree to give more money to poor teams.

Why would they resolve this anytime soon ? The players are not going to accept a rollback like the NHL wants. They can't lower the cap/floor without rolling back salaries or a lot of teams will be suddenly over the cap.

Donald Fehr isn't going to roll over here, this isn't like when Goodenow and Saskin ran the NHLPA, he caused an MLB lockout to get what he wants, he'll lose an NHL season if he has to.

Hoags wrote:

NEELY wrote:They won't be going on strike, or lock out, or w/e. The worst case scenario is the season starts a little late, that's it. People are starting to make a mountain out of a mole hill right now.

NHL wants concessions from players to fix the problems with poor teams and ever rising salary cap.

The NHLPA will argue that all we need is more revenue sharing, rich teams like the Leafs are NOT going to agree to give more money to poor teams.

Why would they resolve this anytime soon ? The players are not going to accept a rollback like the NHL wants. They can't lower the cap/floor without rolling back salaries or a lot of teams will be suddenly over the cap.

Donald Fehr isn't going to roll over here, this isn't like when Goodenow and Saskin ran the NHLPA, he caused an MLB lockout to get what he wants, he'll lose an NHL season if he has to.

Apples and oranges