NHL CBA Talk

wprager wrote:

NEELY wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

NEELY wrote:I hope cooler heads prevail because hockey is the greatest game in the world and it sucks that greed is killing it. Make no mistake, a lockout will kill the game for good, at least in the form of the NHL.

I don't agree that a lockout will "kill the game for good", but it sure isn't going to help matters any. If we lose an entire season again, it'll certainly be the final nail in the coffin for at least a couple of the struggling teams.

I should have said if the lockout lasts the season, yah. The thing I don't understand is EVERYONE knows the problem is there are too many teams and they are in markets that have no chance of succeeding... it's in no ones best interest for those teams to fold though but that might be the outcome.

Common sense is not being practiced on the NHLPA side in the least right now.

The thinking must be that without some of those markets represented they could not have gotten a national deal with NBC.

All you need is New York, LA, and Chicago and you are good to go. That's it. Either way their time is almost done.

I was reading the coverage on the NBA and NFL lockout and it was the same Dung that we are seeing now.

Neither side has any real incentive to put their best offer on the table nor to put any serious effort in resolving the dispute until real money is lost and settling the dispute costs less than continuing to lose money and sit out.

If teams and players were to somehow lose massive amounts of money if the season doesn't start on time, we'd never have a lockout.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

NEELY wrote:

DirtyDave wrote:Wonder if they factored in that eventually the Canadian dollar will drop.

They both know it and so does the rest of the world. NHLPA won't say it because it weakens their argument and the NHL won't say it because it will create uncertainty. The CDN is the white elephant in this along with the southern markets.

I disagree with this part since the our national debt levels and deficit is on a declining trend vs. the opposite trend in the US. I've been saying this for years now and I'm right, as usual.

What about this?

Canadian debt loads rise to highest level in 8 years

wprager wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

NEELY wrote:

DirtyDave wrote:Wonder if they factored in that eventually the Canadian dollar will drop.

They both know it and so does the rest of the world. NHLPA won't say it because it weakens their argument and the NHL won't say it because it will create uncertainty. The CDN is the white elephant in this along with the southern markets.

I disagree with this part since the our national debt levels and deficit is on a declining trend vs. the opposite trend in the US. I've been saying this for years now and I'm right, as usual.

What about this?

Canadian debt loads rise to highest level in 8 years

That's consumer debt.

NEELY wrote:
All you need is New York, LA, and Chicago and you are good to go. That's it. Either way their time is almost done.

Not sure that's true. It would get awfully boring having the same teams play each other over and over. It's not like football, where you only play 1 game per week.

24 teams was a nice manageable number, but they wanted more US exposure. And this is what we got.

If not for the rise of the loonie, I'm thinking Bettman would have been fired a while back.

wprager wrote:

NEELY wrote:
All you need is New York, LA, and Chicago and you are good to go. That's it. Either way their time is almost done.

Not sure that's true. It would get awfully boring having the same teams play each other over and over. It's not like football, where you only play 1 game per week.

24 teams was a nice manageable number, but they wanted more US exposure. And this is what we got.

If not for the rise of the loonie, I'm thinking Bettman would have been fired a while back.

Like the Caps and Pens or NYR and Boston? The same 6-8 teams play every single week on NBC. Pitts, Philly, NYR, Bos, Chi, Det, then the rest is a mismash.

You need a loyal fan base in big markets. Phoenix isn't either.

Hoags wrote:

NEELY wrote:
Yah, everyone is saying that and I am sure the players know that but are they ignoring it all? I hope not.

They're saying the same things they did last time. They're "united', they're "well informed'.

Fehr has been going by the union playbook the whole time.

- Try to win over public opinion against Bettman and the NHL (largely succeeded)
- try and divide the owners (hasn't happened so far)
- try and get the league to play with no CBA so they can strike (not gonna happen)
- take legal action (done, will it do any good ? probably not)
- hold out as long as possible (I refuse to believe they will hold out a full season, there is no way they do it again and many players have said they are not going to do that again)

Only thing left is decertify and sue the league but that will probably get thrown out as a negotiation tactic.

The players have very little leverage, they've been pulling out all the stops to try and maximize theirs but I think it's all for show as they cannot win, best thing would be to get the best possible deal.

Fehr is trying to undo some of the things in the last CBA and that's not going to fly.

SeawaySensFan wrote:
If the owners are reasonable and the players are smart, this should resolved with the players taking the NHL offer with the condition that existing contracts are honored.

Their contracts have never really been "honored" in that sense, they always gave up a % to escrow but I think 5/7 years the NHL paid them back. They can either give up some now or give up an entire season and still accept the same offer like last time.
Owners have seemed more reasonable and they backed down from their initial insane proposal. Fehr keeps proposing the same thing over and over. The NHL has also agreed to increase revenue sharing which is a big plus in my book. Players still want their cake and eat it too.

I think over time.. the support for the players goes down. Comments in the media or on twitter come off as being arrogant.

Take Biznasty on Twitter. He tweeted something like: the players understand the fans frustration. But this is about the player's future, not the fan's future. That is reality.

Now that comes off to me as being arrogant. With the fans there is no player's future.

The NHLPA has spent the last 2 and 1/2 months finding anyway they can be it facebook, etc to trash the NHL. It may have worked in the short term.. but I don't think it will continue.

Yeah the players gave up 24% to get the last CBA settled.. but their salaries grew 76% over the last CBA.. so in the end they gained 52% in salary.

The NHL last season had 43% of the revenue.. while having to pay ALL expenses to operate their teams.. from travel and accomodation, to non-player salaries, to arena heating, lighting, upkeep.. the list is endless and expenses are rising all the time.

The owners need to get a larger percentage than the players to have enough $$ to at least be in the black -- most of them anyway.

The players are prepared to stay out as long as they need to. BUT their loss in salary by staying out will be more than if they accepted the Owners last offer and we had no lockout. The revenues would keep growing and so would the $$ they receive -- even if their % goes down a percentage or two. The second the lockout happens.. they lose fans. The longer it goes, the more fans they lose. When and if they ever come back, be it one year or two years... all the revenue is going to do is go down...

Hoags wrote:

NEELY wrote:
Yah, everyone is saying that and I am sure the players know that but are they ignoring it all? I hope not.

They're saying the same things they did last time. They're "united', they're "well informed'.

Fehr has been going by the union playbook the whole time.

- Try to win over public opinion against Bettman and the NHL (largely succeeded)
- try and divide the owners (hasn't happened so far)
- try and get the league to play with no CBA so they can strike (not gonna happen)
- take legal action (done, will it do any good ? probably not)
- hold out as long as possible (I refuse to believe they will hold out a full season, there is no way they do it again and many players have said they are not going to do that again)

Only thing left is decertify and sue the league but that will probably get thrown out as a negotiation tactic.

The players have very little leverage, they've been pulling out all the stops to try and maximize theirs but I think it's all for show as they cannot win, best thing would be to get the best possible deal.

Fehr is trying to undo some of the things in the last CBA and that's not going to fly.

SeawaySensFan wrote:
If the owners are reasonable and the players are smart, this should resolved with the players taking the NHL offer with the condition that existing contracts are honored.

Their contracts have never really been "honored" in that sense, they always gave up a % to escrow but I think 5/7 years the NHL paid them back. They can either give up some now or give up an entire season and still accept the same offer like last time.
Owners have seemed more reasonable and they backed down from their initial insane proposal. Fehr keeps proposing the same thing over and over. The NHL has also agreed to increase revenue sharing which is a big plus in my book. Players still want their cake and eat it too.

That insane proposal you mentioned was 43%. The Owners operated off that last season, plus paid all their teams' operating expenses. So if that was an insane offer for them to give to the players... what do the players think of the Owners having 43% last season with paying expenses?

Because they wanted cost certainty and got it. Faulting the players for a bad deal the owners made last time around is counter productive and extremely stupid on their part.

NEELY wrote:Because they wanted cost certainty and got it. Faulting the players for a bad deal the owners made last time around is counter productive and extremely stupid on their part.

So the Owners are expected by all to take the lesser percentage of revenue.. even though they pay all of the operating expenses? Everything.

Yeah they got their salary cap last time.. it was needed for the survival of the NHL ... so other than the rollback the players got everything else.. and in the long run won that last CBA in ways of $$$. The big problem with the last CBA was the loopholes in the contract structure..

The reason the big market teams like Toronto, NY etc make so much money is that their ticket revenue is so high. Doesn't it cost about $1,000 a ticket in the ACC at ice level to watch the Leafs.. vs about $200 a ticket at ice level for a Sens game. The ACC is 80% corporate so they will pay those ridiculous prices. It's a tax write off for their coporation. Over a 40 game home schedule.. that's a significant difference in ticket revenue. No wonder the Leafs are so rich.

It's pretty silly. The NHL has operated under the last CBA and now they're saying they need a reduction in the % - why can't the players understand that?

SpezDispenser wrote:It's pretty silly. The NHL has operated under the last CBA and now they're saying they need a reduction in the % - why can't the players understand that?

Because employers always want to cut salaries and employees usually want to make more money. No different than anywhere else in the workforce.

I think if one looked at the percentage of revenues that go to salaries in the "real world" that percentage would often be higher than what the company ends up with for other expenses and, hopefully, profit.

If the players share of revenue keeps growing -- or vary a percentage point or two... then the Owners share will keep dropping or stay near the same while expenses keep rising.

That leads to a lot of losses to me... If some teams are not making enough revenue to offset the expenses... then they lose.

The Owners need to get the larger share of revenue... If the players really want what is good for the league... they would agree with that.

But the players want only what is good for the players.. and be damned what happens with the Owners. At least.. that's the vibe I'm getting from the NHLPA.

NHL lockout rules:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/19178/the-rules-of-a-lockout


Starting at 11:59 p.m. ET Saturday, life changes in a hurry for the 700-plus NHLers locked out by their NHL owners.

From the obvious to the not-so-obvious, let’s take a look at what that entails:

Players are barred from using any NHL team’s private facilities. So for most players that means having to get together and buy ice time elsewhere to continue their workouts.

Players will not be paid their 2012-13 salaries during the lockout. The first of 14 paychecks was expected in mid-October. On the flip side, players will get escrow checks from the NHL in mid- to late October, which counts for 8 percent of their 2011-12 salaries (they paid 8.5 escrow last season, but are getting 8 percent of it back). That’s a nice chunk of change for the players to get at the start of a lockout.

There is a small group of players, however, who will continue to receive their full NHL salaries: the injured ones. Any player injured in a hockey-related fashion is entitled to his full salary until he fully recovers and is deemed fit to play by team doctors. So, for example, guys like Chris Pronger or Mattias Ohlund will continue to get paid. The caveat here is a requirement for these players to seek out team doctors and follow their counsel.

Players are free to play in other leagues once they’re locked out. The key for those players is to get insurance for their NHL contracts in case of injury while playing overseas.

All signing bonuses will be fully paid regardless of the lockout. That’s why so many contracts over the past few months included signing bonuses. It’s guaranteed money in the bank regardless of a lockout.

Players who are 19 and under who are junior-eligible can still be sent back to their junior clubs.

Players cannot be traded during the lockout.

Clubs cannot make players appear at promotional events nor ask players to show up for training or conditioning camps.

If a player is injured while playing in another league during the lockout, an NHL club can suspend him without pay until he is fit to play.

Players who were bought out in a previous year and still have buyout payments due to them will continue to receive them during the lockout.

Looks like a lot of players have themselves a nice little nest egg to live off of for a good long while.

SpezDispenser wrote:It's pretty silly. The NHL has operated under the last CBA and now they're saying they need a reduction in the % - why can't the players understand that?

They understand it very well, they just do not want to give it up. They also know that every few years the owners will knock their % off a few points and lock them out until they accept.

Read about the NFL and NBA negotiations, their player associations were saying the exact same things and in the end they caved. It's almost funny how similar things went.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:It's pretty silly. The NHL has operated under the last CBA and now they're saying they need a reduction in the % - why can't the players understand that?

Because employers always want to cut salaries and employees usually want to make more money. No different than anywhere else in the workforce.

I think if one looked at the percentage of revenues that go to salaries in the "real world" that percentage would often be higher than what the company ends up with for other expenses and, hopefully, profit.

Have you *ever* worked for a share (no matter how small) of the *revenues*? Has *anyone*?

It is *extremely* different from anywhere else in the workforce.

Now, is that *enough* asterisks?

Didn't Gary say that times have never been better at the Stanley Cup presentation? Profits were up, ratings were up, everything was up up up!!!!

But clearly, it's broken.

Tolensky with a gem: CBA must be terrible to have all these teams rushing to sign players under the existing terms.

https://twitter.com/dtolensky/status/246718680896008193