Lockout

[joopen]

"Why is this professional sports league different from all other professional sports leagues?"

IMO it's because the owners expect to see profits on par with the NFL, MLB, and/or NBA; and the players expect to be compensated appropriately for their part in the grand scheme of things, but the reality is... there isn't enough money to go around, and if we're going to see work stoppages every time a CBA expires then there never will be.

There is finally ground to stand on together. This is not the NFL, MLB, or NBA. The players are compensated better (proportionally) than in all the other leagues. The only one that doesn't have either non-guaranteed contracts or a contract limit is MLB. The NBA has contract limits but guaranteed contracts. The NFL has non-guaranteed contracts but no limit. Then players want the MLB structure. We see how well that works out for the have-nots. The owners do need to help themselves. They are not blameless. Revenue sharing was a big part of this at the beginning. The combination of reducing players share and sharing more revenue creates a healthier league. The NHL owners aren't asking for profits like the NFL or MLB or NBA. They are asking just to make *some* money or at the minimum not lose large chunks of it. The NHL owners know what has to happen to make the league more viable, long-term. The players are in the phone booth with the cash floating all around them, grabbing as much as they can but in the process are snatching $1s instead of looking down and seeing the stack of $100s laying at their feet.

[beLIEve]

There are no key areas the players won't give in on because they're currently giving in on everything.

This is where we fundamentally disagree. Fehr is selling this line of bunk that the players are giving everything and the owners are giving nothing. But its all in how you look at it. And in a market economy, there is a right and a wrong way to look at it. This is the right way:

50/50 is not a concession by the players. You can make it look that way by saying "they are going from 57/43 to 50/50 + partial make whole, this is clearly a player concession". But that isn't looking at the big picture. The market for revenue split in cap leagues is right around 50/50 at present day. NFL and NBA are both cap leagues and both have this. It doesn't matter what it was in the past. Sports labor is now worth 50% of revenue. Period. Not a concession by either side. This is market value.

Once you accept that fact, its easy to see how there has been concessions on both sides.

The owners have basically offered to pay $300 million to the players currently under contract. That is a concession from the owners.

In exchange, they are looking for 5 years max, 5% variance, and a 8-10 year term on CBA. The players are countering with 8 years, no variance limit, and a 6-8 year term on CBA. This is the concession from the players. There is a gap between how big the players concession is and how big the owners want it to be, and thats why we don't have an agreement yet.

Edit:
As pointed out by tfrizz, the players are in fact offering concessions on salary variance, just not to the tune the owners are looking for. My mistake.

[champeen]

its over for me.

it's not over for anyone who takes the time to go on the hockey message board of their choice and post that it's over for them. the only people who it's truly over for are the people who dissapear from lgp, stop posting, stop lurking, and don't come back. they move on with their lives entirely. let's face it. it's not over for any of us.

[joopen]

There are no key areas the players won't give in on because they're currently giving in on everything.

This is where we fundamentally disagree. Fehr is selling this line of bunk that the players are giving everything and the owners are giving nothing. But its all in how you look at it. And in a market economy, there is a right and a wrong way to look at it. This is the right way:

50/50 is not a concession by the players. You can make it look that way by saying "they are going from 57/43 to 50/50 + partial make whole, this is clearly a player concession". But that isn't looking at the big picture. The market for revenue split in cap leagues is right around 50/50 at present day. NFL and NBA are both cap leagues and both have this. It doesn't matter what it was in the past. Sports labor is now worth 50% of revenue. Period. Not a concession by either side. This is market value.

Once you accept that fact, its easy to see how there has been concessions on both sides.

The owners have basically offered to pay $300 million to the players currently under contract. That is a concession from the owners.

In exchange, they are looking for 5 years max, 5% variance, and a 8-10 year term on CBA. The players are countering with 8 years, no variance limit, and a 6-8 year term on CBA. This is the concession from the players. There is a gap between how big the players concession is and how big the owners want it to be, and thats why we don't have an agreement yet.

Very well stated...

[tfrizz]

Bettman, Fehr piloting sinking ship of fools in NHL dispute

For those of you who have not been keeping abreast of such things, let's give you an admittedly simplistic overview of the current dilemma. Coming off a season in which the league generated a record $3.3 billion in revenue, NHL owners sought to cut the players' share of revenue upon the expiration of the last bargaining agreement. Citing losses for several teams, the teams proposed to cut the player revenue from 57 percent to -- get this -- 43 percent. For the players, that represented a pay reduction of roughly 25 percent, which seems like a rather illogical amount for a business that was, relatively speaking, booming.

Of course, the NHL made no mention of the fact that, according to people like former NHLPA director Paul Kelly, the Toronto Maple Leafs turned an annual profit of somewhere near $125 million. (The Bruins, according to a recent Globe story, made $14.1 million.) Further, the NHL has done little to publicize the fact that, according to the Globe, league owners share only an estimated 11 percent of revenue as compared to roughly 30 percent in the NBA.

Understand? The successful NHL teams are making plenty and the failing ones are losing. And rather than increasing revenue sharing to the levels of the most similar league -- that is to say, tripling it -- NHL owners opened negotiations by putting almost the entire burden on the players, sending a message from the very start that has set the tone for these entire negotiations.

Basically, as I mentioned before, the move fro 57/43 to 50/50 will do nothing more than make the rich richer - the poor will still be poor.

eh. a lot of the "middle class" teams will be able to use that money to go from the red to the black. the poor teams will stay poor, but that's a minority of the league. it's the penguins of the league that are the ones driving the bus.

and that's a predictably ****ty point he's making about profit sharing. i don't think there's a comparable league out there where 3-5 teams are the only ones who would significantly contribute to profit sharing, yet have no competitive advantage with their amount of revenue. at least in baseball, you can buy a world series with that money that you're giving everyone else. the rags, habs and leafs will be funding the NHL and will still be bound by the same financial constraints as small market teams.

My point being that you're still going to have 4 or 5 teams turning the bulk of the profit, 8 or 9 teams drowing in losses, and another dozen teams still barely staying afloat. They're citing teams losing money as the major reason they need to move to 50/50, but the teams losing money are the ones that are going to benefit from that the least. Teams like Toronto that already turn a respectable profit are going to see that grow by, say, $15- to $20-million while teams like Phoenix or the Islanders will only see maybe a $4- to $6-million increase. It just puts more money (and, consequently, power) in the hands of the teams that already have it.

There's a reason the players are trying to get revenue sharing increased. They understand that they need as many "healthy" teams in the league as possible, and that revenue sharing is the only way to truly do it.

[Idoit40fans]

its over for me.

it's not over for anyone who takes the time to go on the hockey message board of their choice and post that it's over for them. the only people who it's truly over for are the people who dissapear from lgp, stop posting, stop lurking, and don't come back. they move on with their lives entirely. let's face it. it's not over for any of us.

No. I come to this site out of habit to pass time during the day. Im not saying its over for me at all, but im definitely not in the minority of people when saying that coming here has nothing to do with me being a hockey fan.

[shmenguin]

the players are definitely compromising on pretty much everything. but the simple response to that is...and?

as a whole, the NHL is a failing business. in the real world, that means layoffs and other cost-cutting measures. go try to figure out a way to do that in a pro sports league. you can't. so when the CBA comes around, you take things away from players instead of just taking away players. it's not a profound or provocative statement to say that the players are the ones getting the worse end of every deal. that's just how it has to go.

[Rylan]

its over for me.

it's not over for anyone who takes the time to go on the hockey message board of their choice and post that it's over for them. the only people who it's truly over for are the people who dissapear from lgp, stop posting, stop lurking, and don't come back. they move on with their lives entirely. let's face it. it's not over for any of us.

No. I come to this site out of habit to pass time during the day. Im not saying its over for me at all, but im definitely not in the minority of people when saying that coming here has nothing to do with me being a hockey fan.

LGP definitely helps pass the time that's for sure.

[tfrizz]

There are no key areas the players won't give in on because they're currently giving in on everything.

This is where we fundamentally disagree. Fehr is selling this line of bunk that the players are giving everything and the owners are giving nothing. But its all in how you look at it. And in a market economy, there is a right and a wrong way to look at it. This is the right way:

50/50 is not a concession by the players. You can make it look that way by saying "they are going from 57/43 to 50/50 + partial make whole, this is clearly a player concession". But that isn't looking at the big picture. The market for revenue split in cap leagues is right around 50/50 at present day. NFL and NBA are both cap leagues and both have this. It doesn't matter what it was in the past. Sports labor is now worth 50% of revenue. Period. Not a concession by either side. This is market value.

Once you accept that fact, its easy to see how there has been concessions on both sides.

The owners have basically offered to pay $300 million to the players currently under contract. That is a concession from the owners.

In exchange, they are looking for 5 years max, 5% variance, and a 8-10 year term on CBA. The players are countering with 8 years, no variance limit, and a 6-8 year term on CBA. This is the concession from the players. There is a gap between how big the players concession is and how big the owners want it to be, and thats why we don't have an agreement yet.

Well said, just want to correct one thing. The players did counter with a variance limit. For contracts of 6 years or less, the lowest year couldn't be less than 25% of the highest year; and for contracts of 7 or 8 years, the NHL's 5% variance rule would be in effect.

[Idoit40fans]

Kudos to the people i dont have foed that have posted in the last couple of pages. A normal argument.

[beLIEve]

There are no key areas the players won't give in on because they're currently giving in on everything.

This is where we fundamentally disagree. Fehr is selling this line of bunk that the players are giving everything and the owners are giving nothing. But its all in how you look at it. And in a market economy, there is a right and a wrong way to look at it. This is the right way:

50/50 is not a concession by the players. You can make it look that way by saying "they are going from 57/43 to 50/50 + partial make whole, this is clearly a player concession". But that isn't looking at the big picture. The market for revenue split in cap leagues is right around 50/50 at present day. NFL and NBA are both cap leagues and both have this. It doesn't matter what it was in the past. Sports labor is now worth 50% of revenue. Period. Not a concession by either side. This is market value.

Once you accept that fact, its easy to see how there has been concessions on both sides.

The owners have basically offered to pay $300 million to the players currently under contract. That is a concession from the owners.

In exchange, they are looking for 5 years max, 5% variance, and a 8-10 year term on CBA. The players are countering with 8 years, no variance limit, and a 6-8 year term on CBA. This is the concession from the players. There is a gap between how big the players concession is and how big the owners want it to be, and thats why we don't have an agreement yet.

Well said, just want to correct one thing. The players did counter with a variance limit. For contracts of 6 years or less, the lowest year couldn't be less than 25% of the highest year; and for contracts of 7 or 8 years, the NHL's 5% variance rule would be in effect.

Good call. I missed that part yesterday. My mistake.

[shmenguin]

My point being that you're still going to have 4 or 5 teams turning the bulk of the profit, 8 or 9 teams drowing in losses, and another dozen teams still barely staying afloat. They're citing teams losing money as the major reason they need to move to 50/50, but the teams losing money are the ones that are going to benefit from that the least. Teams like Toronto that already turn a respectable profit are going to see that grow by, say, $15- to $20-million while teams like Phoenix or the Islanders will only see maybe a $4- to $6-million increase. It just puts more money (and, consequently, power) in the hands of the teams that already have it.

i'm looking at the 2011 numbers (can't find a summary for 2012 right now)...two thirds of the league would be greatly helped by adjusted revenue split. the rich and poor teams aren't major players here. it's the bubble teams. and there are a bunch of them.

[Mr. Colby]

Kudos to the people i dont have foed that have posted in the last couple of pages. A normal argument.

[tfrizz]

My point being that you're still going to have 4 or 5 teams turning the bulk of the profit, 8 or 9 teams drowing in losses, and another dozen teams still barely staying afloat. They're citing teams losing money as the major reason they need to move to 50/50, but the teams losing money are the ones that are going to benefit from that the least. Teams like Toronto that already turn a respectable profit are going to see that grow by, say, $15- to $20-million while teams like Phoenix or the Islanders will only see maybe a $4- to $6-million increase. It just puts more money (and, consequently, power) in the hands of the teams that already have it.

i'm looking at the 2011 numbers (can't find a summary for 2012 right now)...two thirds of the league would be greatly helped by adjusted revenue split. the rich and poor teams aren't major players here. it's the bubble teams. and there are a bunch of them.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub ... utput=html

Based off the numbers reported by Forbes, if there was a 50/50 split of HRR last year it would've resulted in only three teams going from losing to making money - Minnesota, Nashville, San Jose, and Washington. There still would've been 9 teams losing money with 3 of those teams losing more than $10-million.

As mikey's pointed out, these numbers aren't the overly reliable... but it's all we have to work with.

[Idoit40fans]

I love reading tsn comments. For some reason they think player salaries going up makes ticket prices going up. Does school stop at 9th grade in canada or do they just not cover basic economics?

[shmenguin]

My point being that you're still going to have 4 or 5 teams turning the bulk of the profit, 8 or 9 teams drowing in losses, and another dozen teams still barely staying afloat. They're citing teams losing money as the major reason they need to move to 50/50, but the teams losing money are the ones that are going to benefit from that the least. Teams like Toronto that already turn a respectable profit are going to see that grow by, say, $15- to $20-million while teams like Phoenix or the Islanders will only see maybe a $4- to $6-million increase. It just puts more money (and, consequently, power) in the hands of the teams that already have it.

i'm looking at the 2011 numbers (can't find a summary for 2012 right now)...two thirds of the league would be greatly helped by adjusted revenue split. the rich and poor teams aren't major players here. it's the bubble teams. and there are a bunch of them.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub ... utput=html

Based off the numbers reported by Forbes, if there was a 50/50 split of HRR last year it would've resulted in only three teams going from losing to making money - Minnesota, Nashville, San Jose, and Washington. There still would've been 9 teams losing money with 3 of those teams losing more than $10-million.

As mikey's pointed out, these numbers aren't the overly reliable... but it's all we have to work with.

2011 and 2012 were different on the surface (less teams in the red), but the theme remains. well run teams want a reliable profit. hovering around break even, not knowing if you'll operate at a profit or loss from year to year (which is how i would describe most teams in the league) doesn't cut it.

[Mr. Colby]

My point being that you're still going to have 4 or 5 teams turning the bulk of the profit, 8 or 9 teams drowing in losses, and another dozen teams still barely staying afloat. They're citing teams losing money as the major reason they need to move to 50/50, but the teams losing money are the ones that are going to benefit from that the least. Teams like Toronto that already turn a respectable profit are going to see that grow by, say, $15- to $20-million while teams like Phoenix or the Islanders will only see maybe a $4- to $6-million increase. It just puts more money (and, consequently, power) in the hands of the teams that already have it.

i'm looking at the 2011 numbers (can't find a summary for 2012 right now)...two thirds of the league would be greatly helped by adjusted revenue split. the rich and poor teams aren't major players here. it's the bubble teams. and there are a bunch of them.

"Making the rich richer" or increasing profits by 15-20 million for a team like Toronto only increases the pool of funds available for revenue sharing. The owners have shown no resistance to increasing the revenue sharing system to help with the poor and middle ground teams. The first step of that, though, is increasing overall league revenue, which begins at lowering the player share.

The teams in the 8-24 range in terms of profit rankings will actually see significant profit increases as a result of decreased player share. If there are only 3-4 teams struggling, 3-4 breaking even, 15-20 making decent profits, and then the top 5 teams raking, that's so much better than where we are now, with 8 teams struggling, 12 teams breaking even, 5 making a decent profit, and 5 raking

[tfrizz]

I love reading tsn comments. For some reason they think player salaries going up makes ticket prices going up. Does school stop at 9th grade in canada or do they just not cover basic economics?

It's been almost 10 years since I graduated, but I don't recall any economics courses being offered at my high school. It may be that there was one elective, but I was more focused on tech courses. Thankfully, intro economics was a core course for my degree.

[Mr. Colby]

I love reading tsn comments. For some reason they think player salaries going up makes ticket prices going up. Does school stop at 9th grade in canada or do they just not cover basic economics?

You mean Grade 9

[MRandall25]

My point being that you're still going to have 4 or 5 teams turning the bulk of the profit, 8 or 9 teams drowing in losses, and another dozen teams still barely staying afloat. They're citing teams losing money as the major reason they need to move to 50/50, but the teams losing money are the ones that are going to benefit from that the least. Teams like Toronto that already turn a respectable profit are going to see that grow by, say, $15- to $20-million while teams like Phoenix or the Islanders will only see maybe a $4- to $6-million increase. It just puts more money (and, consequently, power) in the hands of the teams that already have it.

i'm looking at the 2011 numbers (can't find a summary for 2012 right now)...two thirds of the league would be greatly helped by adjusted revenue split. the rich and poor teams aren't major players here. it's the bubble teams. and there are a bunch of them.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub ... utput=html

Based off the numbers reported by Forbes, if there was a 50/50 split of HRR last year it would've resulted in only three teams going from losing to making money - Minnesota, Nashville, San Jose, and Washington. There still would've been 9 teams losing money with 3 of those teams losing more than $10-million.

As mikey's pointed out, these numbers aren't the overly reliable... but it's all we have to work with.

2011 and 2012 were different on the surface (less teams in the red), but the theme remains. well run teams want a reliable profit. hovering around break even, not knowing if you'll operate at a profit or loss from year to year (which is how i would describe most teams in the league) doesn't cut it.

Just out of curiosity, what do teams in the NBA run at? Anyone know (not just directed at shmenguin)?

[Rylan]

I love reading tsn comments. For some reason they think player salaries going up makes ticket prices going up. Does school stop at 9th grade in canada or do they just not cover basic economics?

You mean Grade 9

In Canada they just say 9.

[tfrizz]

My point being that you're still going to have 4 or 5 teams turning the bulk of the profit, 8 or 9 teams drowing in losses, and another dozen teams still barely staying afloat. They're citing teams losing money as the major reason they need to move to 50/50, but the teams losing money are the ones that are going to benefit from that the least. Teams like Toronto that already turn a respectable profit are going to see that grow by, say, $15- to $20-million while teams like Phoenix or the Islanders will only see maybe a $4- to $6-million increase. It just puts more money (and, consequently, power) in the hands of the teams that already have it.

i'm looking at the 2011 numbers (can't find a summary for 2012 right now)...two thirds of the league would be greatly helped by adjusted revenue split. the rich and poor teams aren't major players here. it's the bubble teams. and there are a bunch of them.

"Making the rich richer" or increasing profits by 15-20 million for a team like Toronto only increases the pool of funds available for revenue sharing. The owners have shown no resistance to increasing the revenue sharing system to help with the poor and middle ground teams. The first step of that, though, is increasing overall league revenue, which begins at lowering the player share.

The teams in the 8-24 range in terms of profit rankings will actually see significant profit increases as a result of decreased player share. If there are only 3-4 teams struggling, 3-4 breaking even, 15-20 making decent profits, and then the top 5 teams raking, that's so much better than where we are now, with 8 teams struggling, 12 teams breaking even, 5 making a decent profit, and 5 raking

There has been resistance, but it hasn't been talked about much. Back in October, Doug MacLean said he was told by sources from "a highly profitable team" (which he claimed wasn't Toronto) that the proposed increases to revenue sharing would almost double the amount they'd be contributing, and that they were vehemently against that. I can't find the link, but I believe James Mirtle reported that Toronto was handing over something like 1/3 of their profits in revenue sharing. The me, that's just insane...

[Tico Rick]

Canadian socialism.

[shmenguin]

revenue sharing is a dead end. it's a cow that's already being milked as much as it can.

[Kaizer]

its over for me.

it's not over for anyone who takes the time to go on the hockey message board of their choice and post that it's over for them. the only people who it's truly over for are the people who dissapear from lgp, stop posting, stop lurking, and don't come back. they move on with their lives entirely. let's face it. it's not over for any of us.

i'm talking about hope for the season, it'll never be over for me in NHR until i get banned.