Lockout

[interstorm]

I'm sorry I have a differing viewpoint on the situation than you do, I guess.

That's alright. Some call us "pro-union propagandists" without labeling themselves similarly as "pro-league propagandists". I mean, you can't define day without also defining night, right?

Doesn't really matter...nobody here is going to change their mind (on this topic). Some agree, some disagree. Ehhh...whatever. We're all just using this forum to voice our frustrations...

[joopen]

when i think of mediators, i think of the opening scene of wedding crashers

When I think of mediators, I think of my custodial mediation. All the guy was there for was to make sure this didn't take up a judges' time. Didn't care about concerns from either side, just wanted a resolution. It was the biggest joke I have come across. He actually tried to tell me that it was a good thing she didn't work and was on welfare because I, ya know, had a job and worked my rear end off to support my daughter. Long story short, mediation will solve very little in my experience.

[llipgh2]

US Federal mediators now involved:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=410329

If this has already been posted earlier, sorry.

[no name]

As I recall, the owners are locking the players out. The players didn't bring this on themselves.

it's a good thing this slant doesn't matter at all, or else we wouldn't have a salary cap and this league would still be one giant bag of charcoal.

I was more referring to no name's post which said "The players brought this on themselves."

And no, the system would've been the same as last year...

Where did i say that?? LOL

" I can't believe Fehr gets the players to follow him so blindly. "what ever you say Don, we are right behind you." They are losing wages they will never see again."

"Also Fehr let the NHLPA know he was intrested in the job, they never contacted him. He also informed the players, PA how to get rid of th last leader to pave the way for him."

Yo may not have said it directly, but it sure as hell was implied.

Then quote my words not what you think they imply.

[MRandall25]

It's called "paraphrasing"

[marek]

when i think of mediators, i think of the opening scene of wedding crashers

If only Bettman and Fehr were as logical as Vince Vaughn...

[mikey287]

I'm sorry I have a differing viewpoint on the situation than you do, I guess.

That's alright. Some call us "pro-union propagandists" without labeling themselves similarly as "pro-league propagandists". I mean, you can't define day without also defining night, right?

That's alright. Some people hate common sense and backing their arguments with facts...you can't be a propagandist without a little ambiguity and misplaced assumption, right?

Let me try: The players have made so much money over the course of their careers that they "pretty much" should be able to live off of proper investment and savings in the event of injury, retirement or work stoppage without any problem. Given that they "pretty much" don't have any businesses to run themsleves and a pension to look forward to, they're really set for life regardless of whether they get 57%, 50% or 43% and should just be thankful to be playing a game for a living instead of bellyaching over what amounts to like $50,000 per player per year...I'd be lucky to even make that much with my salary! It's the owners that are running businesses and have to worry about employees, arenas, and countless other things that just focus on the hockey side of their businesses...players, like Mike Modano, just have to worry about feeding their dogs and paying property taxes on their multi-million dollar mansions...

Wow...that is easier. I should have taken up an assumption-based position earlier in the thread...so much easier, you wouldn't believe it...well, you might...

[shmenguin]

It's called "paraphrasing"

quotation marks don't go around paraphrased statements. it's extremely misleading

[Fire0nice228]

Nobody wants to lose money. Not you, not I, not the owners of a pro sports team. The argument that the owners shouldn't care because they make money elsewhere is laughable.

[interstorm]

That's alright. Some people hate common sense and backing their arguments with facts...you can't be a propagandist without a little ambiguity and misplaced assumption, right?

c'mon mikey - i think the only misplaced assumption is saying that i haven't provided facts and common sense. you're usually much more thorough (which i honestly do appreciate and respect). just today alone i stated how the average NHL franchise has appreciated in value better than the average stock on the Dow (by more than double the margin at 19% for the Dow to 43% for NHL teams). that's ok...can't read every page.

my position has always been that the owners and players should split 50/50 but that there doesn't need to be an immediate cut over to this figure. i believe a promise has been made to players (in the form of a contract) that the teams need to honor -- and by honor I mean the assumed dollar value, not a redefinition of it based on a lower HRR the owners themselves create.

as for common sense -- how in the world are we supposed to look at the minnesota wild, a team reporting to have "lost" 6 million this past year and went on the biggest player shopping spree in recent memory this off-season, and feel like the system isn't working for them. How in the world am I to think the NHL finances are broken because the Washington Capitals lose 7.5 million yet (according to CapGeek) have had the following cap space for the last 3 years (2011-2012) ZERO, (2010-2011) ZERO, (2009-2010) $3 Million. common sense -- it's right there!

NHL franchises locking out players to get a cap and then spending the following years circumventing the cap while laying blame at the players is moral hazard. teams shouldn't spend that much - they should operate within a budget (not the cap - but a real financial budget). if most teams did this, dollars spent on players would be lower and NHL salaries would be lower. they have ALL THE TOOLS ALREADY to do what they say they need. if a team wants to make more profit -- sign less high priced players. now i will admit the range between the cap ceiling and floor is probably narrow -- but that is a totally different discussion.

i think the difference between our opinions is that you believe there is a major problem financially with the league. i don't. and like you saying you just don't get "our" position -- i have to admit the same. i look at the above and say to (most) the NHL teams, "what is your problem?"

[Froggy]

so i have to point out once again that i'm an idiot. i'm going to state my opinion (again, as an idiot) and please tell me how close i am to the truth i am on this...

i honestly think that the financial success of the league is more important than the financial success of the individual players. The league cannot survive if a significant amount of teams are losing money. not enough teams make substantial profits to make revenue sharing a viable option, at least on its own. Therefore, in order for there to be a league with enough teams to pay all these players ANYTHING, the players don't really have a leg to stand here. The league is basically saying, "we can't afford to have things continue the way they are. here's a plan we came up with" and the players are like, "we see you are losing money, so let's re-do things so it looks like we're conceding money, but then you're going to give most of it back to us". and then the owners are saying, "you don't understand. WE CAN'T AFFORD TO KEEP DOING THIS!" then the players are saying, "the NHL is being stubborn and uncooperative. we just want to play!" and so on, and so on, and so on...

[Froggy]

Nobody wants to lose money. Not you, not I, not the owners of a pro sports team. The argument that the owners shouldn't care because they make money elsewhere is laughable.

yeah... how DARE those owners expect a return on an investment they payed millions and millions of dollars for.

[interstorm]

Froggy - I edited my post (directly above) for more clarifications, but i agree with what you say to a point. my questions are these:

1) what is a "reasonable" profit?
2) what makes teams lose money?

to point 1, i would again state that there is a difference between regular paid money and asset appreciation. looking at the stocks on the dow, the average dividend is 3%. at $240,000,000, the equivalent is just under $8 million dollars. so based on this, i would say while it would be great to make 40-50-100 million per franchise, a precedent is set by the stock market on what a 'reasonable' business can make (again - discussing dividends). beyond that, there is the value of the franchise as a whole (equate this to ownership of the stock). in that aspect, Forbes states the average team has appreciated since the lockout by 43%. it is important to note that over the same time period with the Dow, the average appreciation is under 20% -- so NHL teams far outpace the market there.

to point 2, teams are obligated to spend a certain amount of money (cap floor) but not go beyond a certain threshold (cap ceiling). many teams are on the bubble -- in the +/- 5 million range. if you look at many of their operating decisions, however, it is clear they place a higher priority on winning instead of profit. this is america -- they're totally capable of doing this. i'd even go far enough to commend the owners for it. what doesn't make sense, though, is to recklessly spend yet claim a business cannot turn a profit. at +/- 5 million, it wouldn't be hard have made some decisions to get the finances to fall in line with the $8 million profit i mention above. don't read what i say -- look yourself. go research what the washington capitals say they have made and look at the players they signed. now i am sure it would have been hard to mcphee, but he could have easily held back signing certain guys because the budget didn't allow for it. leonsis gave him the green light though. great -- but again, it's nobody's fault but his as to why the team didn't make more money.

the NHL needs to get out of this lockout mode that bettman has produced. they need to focus on growing the sport. the winter classic was great. even shootouts (for the casual fan) were awesome. just the guys in charge appear more inclined to fighting for crumbs instead of gunning for a seat at the table.

[tfrizz]

I would assume Fehr only gets paid when the players do (meaning if the season gets cancelled, he doesn't get paid for it).

Well, eventually they'll sign something, so I assume he will get paid then for his current work or whatever he wants to call what he's been doing. My point all along has been that if, let's say, the season is cancelled for 2 years, during which time players miss paychecks (about $20 million for Crosby), Fehr would still get paid $3m x 2. I hope these players find his "work" valuable because all I see is a guy who's stubborn and who doesn't care what happens to the game of hockey.

That's funny, cuz that's how the majority of the owners come across as well. The players come down to where you're at and all you say is "We aren't moving". THAT is the definition of "stubborn".

You mean after they already offered $200+ million? Yup they should have jumped at the prospect of giving them more and not getting any other concessions?

As James Mirtle pointed out, asking for $393-million was a significant drop for the NHLPA who was previously asking for $593-million in "Make Whole".

[tfrizz]

Why can we only negotiate off of the players' offers? That sounds like the definition of "stubborn" and "[careless]"

Because it's the most recent offer. If they aren't willing to work off each others' proposals, then there is no giving-and-taking (or back-and-forth) going on. AFAIK the NHL still won't consider proposals that weren't based off their's from last month which is a clear indicator that there's absolutely no progress being made.

[Froggy]

i guess the thing that confuses me is that people are citing these high player contracts as proof that the owners are either spending above their means or shouldn't be able to complain about losing money or whatever. they have to spend between x & y dollars. they HAVE to. think about it like this. someone gives you $20,000 to buy a car, with the condition that you have to spend all $20,000. does it matter if you get a solid, reliable car worth every penny, or a $12,000 car with $8,000 worth of specials, like monster truck tires, and a leather interior, and all the features? you are still spending the same amount of money total.

[Idoit40fans]

Why can we only negotiate off of the players' offers? That sounds like the definition of "stubborn" and "[careless]"

Because it's the most recent offer. If they aren't willing to work off each others' proposals, then there is no giving-and-taking (or back-and-forth) going on. AFAIK the NHL still won't consider proposals that weren't based off their's from last month which is a clear indicator that there's absolutely no progress being made.

Yeah, thats a good question. Maybe we should ask the owners who wouldn't do anything until the players put a comprehensive offer out there.

[Rylan]

Monster truck tires and leather seats just don't seem like they would go together.

[tfrizz]

I'm sorry I have a differing viewpoint on the situation than you do, I guess.

It's not that you have a differing viewpoint, it's how its presented that I think is a tiny bit disingenuous...it doesn't take enough of the picture into account, it's based on a lot of assumptions, myths-turned-facts, and worst of all, it seems to ignore the "test subject" ...that is, the last lockout. The blueprint was made for success already, it just needs to be tweaked. It worked, we were all happy. I can't fathom the opinion that says, "no no no, this'll never do...reverse the process! stop the presses! forget all this!" I'm all ears, but I haven't seen any good, cogent arguments for tearing down what was established before posed on this board...

Simplistic view: same structure that worked for everyone (mutual benefit), but tweaked so that there aren't less functioning franchises (mutual benefit). In exchange for the tweak, the owners bend over backwards to pay for a major portion of the rollback they're proposing (net mutual benefit).

I just can't imagine what being on the side that says, "nope, all wrong...start over...the players deserve more than the other four more popular sports...and the linking revenue to salary thing was wrong..." is like...

I agree with what you're saying, except that several players have already said it's not about the money but the contracting rights. It's been speculated that the NHL's proposed contract restrictions will drive contract values down by as much $2-million per year. If the PA is, in fact, fighting for the rights of the young guys, then this has a much larger impact on earnings potential than their current contracts do.

[no name]

Nobody wants to lose money. Not you, not I, not the owners of a pro sports team. The argument that the owners shouldn't care because they make money elsewhere is laughable.

yeah... how DARE those owners expect a return on an investment they payed millions and millions of dollars for.

Sometimes it appears the owners care more about winning than they do about making money. Not all the time but some owners make you wonder how much they are about losing money on their sports franhises. Of course we got the opposite in our baseball ownership.

[pens_srq]

I don't have time to read the players proposal at work. Am I hearing things or are they proposing elimination of a hard cap and a luxury tax like baseball? Because if that's the case then they have negotiated in bad faith this entire time. They are simply trying to eliminate the cap and the owners have rightly locked them out and should continue to do so until Fehr is gone. This is very much about the parity in the league.

No one that is a fan of hockey wants it to be like baseball. No one that doesn't stand to gain financially from the change.

If you go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_tax_%28sports%29 Note:

The "hard" salary cap of the National Football League has prevented any need for a luxury tax arrangement.

I don't know why we would want to be like anything but the most successful league.

[tfrizz]

Let me try: The players have made so much money over the course of their careers that they "pretty much" should be able to live off of proper investment and savings in the event of injury, retirement or work stoppage without any problem. Given that they "pretty much" don't have any businesses to run themsleves and a pension to look forward to, they're really set for life regardless of whether they get 57%, 50% or 43% and should just be thankful to be playing a game for a living instead of bellyaching over what amounts to like $50,000 per player per year...I'd be lucky to even make that much with my salary! It's the owners that are running businesses and have to worry about employees, arenas, and countless other things that just focus on the hockey side of their businesses...players, like Mike Modano, just have to worry about feeding their dogs and paying property taxes on their multi-million dollar mansions...

The only issue I have here is that studies have shown that 78% of NFL players go bankrupt or are in financial distress within 2 years of retirement. I know there are substantial differences between NFL and NHL players in regards to earnings and career length, but this would lead me to believe that a fair percentage (maybe 25%?) of former NHL players go through the same thing.

I've heard the NHLPA sent out a memo informing players that they should invest or put some money aside due to the impending lockout. If true, that's pretty telling about the financial planning of your average NHLer.

[interstorm]

i guess the thing that confuses me is that people are citing these high player contracts as proof that the owners are either spending above their means or shouldn't be able to complain about losing money or whatever. they have to spend between x & y dollars. they HAVE to. think about it like this. someone gives you $20,000 to buy a car, with the condition that you have to spend all $20,000. does it matter if you get a solid, reliable car worth every penny, or a $12,000 car with $8,000 worth of specials, like monster truck tires, and a leather interior, and all the features? you are still spending the same amount of money total.

well - i don't think that is an equal comparison. forget the players for a moment and focus on the money. if every team spent to the cap (which doesn't happen), there would be more money in play than if every team spent to the floor (which also wouldn't happen). more money in play means higher contracts for each player (because, of course, a set number of players will be signed no matter how much money is there or not). teams cannot collude but i think it is fair for them to make it clear they are sticking to budgets. instead you have snider in philly putting the screws to nashville by putting a mega deal in play for weber (which, by the way, i called: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=59173&p=2152024&hilit=weber#p2152024). the owners are ripping themselves apart and lay blame at the player's feet. i can't hold shae responsible for signing the deal, but i can look at the flyers and say (in the term of a business), "what the heck are you doing"?

[interstorm]

The only issue I have here is that studies have shown that 78% of NFL players go bankrupt or are in financial distress within 2 years of retirement.

uh-uh. nope. it is their money and they can save or spend as they feel fit.

don't penalize the owners for players not having good spending habits.
don't penalize the players for owners not having good spending habits.

[tfrizz]

so i have to point out once again that i'm an idiot. i'm going to state my opinion (again, as an idiot) and please tell me how close i am to the truth i am on this...

i honestly think that the financial success of the league is more important than the financial success of the individual players. The league cannot survive if a significant amount of teams are losing money. not enough teams make substantial profits to make revenue sharing a viable option, at least on its own. Therefore, in order for there to be a league with enough teams to pay all these players ANYTHING, the players don't really have a leg to stand here. The league is basically saying, "we can't afford to have things continue the way they are. here's a plan we came up with" and the players are like, "we see you are losing money, so let's re-do things so it looks like we're conceding money, but then you're going to give most of it back to us". and then the owners are saying, "you don't understand. WE CAN'T AFFORD TO KEEP DOING THIS!" then the players are saying, "the NHL is being stubborn and uncooperative. we just want to play!" and so on, and so on, and so on...

I agree, but a big problem is that even with an additional 7% it's projected that 10 teams will still lose money each year. To me, the biggest problem with the NHL is that the gap between the "haves" (Toronto, NY Rangers, Montreal, etc) and the "have nots" (NY Islanders, Phoenix, Columbus, etc) is simply too large, and will likely always be too large.

IMO, it is ridiculous to have to ask a team Toronto to give up almost 1/3 of their profit to try to help bail out teams - especially when their profits are only in the $80- to $90-million range to begin with.