Lockout

[tfrizz]

Thank you Fehr and NHLPA.

I'll agree, but blame the PA more. They are the ones that hired Fehr and had to know what would probably happen.

The PA hired Fehr for a reason. It's also why you don't see any players speaking poorly of Fehr - he's doing what they hired him for.

[King Sid the Great 87]

Mark Recchi chimes in telling the players to take the deal now before it gets worse...

I guess Dr. Recchi is now Mark Recchi, esq., legal expert.

You expect the players to gain leverage the longer this drags on? 30 owners, all with other business interests, will find it far easier to stay united and solvent than a bunch of dopey athletes will. You can take that to the bank.

[tfrizz]

Mark Recchi chimes in telling the players to take the deal now before it gets worse...

I guess Dr. Recchi is now Mark Recchi, esq., legal expert.

You expect the players to gain leverage the longer this drags on? 30 owners, all with other business interests, will find it far easier to stay united and solvent than a bunch of dopey athletes will. You can take that to the bank.

Except that the owners aren't united.

The commish has three groups of owners: the ones who want to play; the ones in the middle, including Tampa and Nashville, who want a better collective bargaining agreement but recognize not playing is worse; and the hardliners. It would be a mistake to underestimate the last group. There are several who would rather cancel the season than accept a bad deal because they are hemorrhaging money and need immediate satisfaction.

While the players believe Boston Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs is calling the shots, an educated guess at the final group includes but may not be limited to Anaheim, Columbus, Florida, the Islanders, Phoenix, St. Louis, Washington and Dallas -- enough to block any agreement from getting done (It's tough to lock it down because owners are forbidden to discuss this stuff. Attempts to talk to a couple were politely shot down).

This group is the biggest challenge for both the commissioner and the players.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion ... rains.html


The players, on the other hand, appear to be holding strong. Nick Kypreos speculated on yesterday's Hockey Central at Noon that since the NHL is younger than ever, with many young players cashing in on big contracts, that they are afraid of what will come in 5-6 years when the new CBA would be set to expire. He believes that the NHL's offer at that time would include a 45-47% share of HRR for the players and no more guaranteed contracts, which - if true - could be a major reason the NHLPA is so unwilling to give in.

[offsides]

Thank you Fehr and NHLPA.

I'll agree, but blame the PA more. They are the ones that hired Fehr and had to know what would probably happen.

The PA hired Fehr for a reason. It's also why you don't see any players speaking poorly of Fehr - he's doing what they hired him for.

Which is why I blame the players the most for this. I guess they got what they wanted.

[Pitts]

Thank you Fehr and NHLPA.

I'll agree, but blame the PA more. They are the ones that hired Fehr and had to know what would probably happen.

The PA hired Fehr for a reason. It's also why you don't see any players speaking poorly of Fehr - he's doing what they hired him for.

Which is why I blame the players the most for this. I guess they got what they wanted.

Huh? The players were locked out, they didn't strike. Also, they are on record stating that they were willing to operate under the current system while negotiating a new agreement. The NHL is the one who said "no."

[opie22002]

Thank you Fehr and NHLPA.

I'll agree, but blame the PA more. They are the ones that hired Fehr and had to know what would probably happen.

The PA hired Fehr for a reason. It's also why you don't see any players speaking poorly of Fehr - he's doing what they hired him for.

Which is why I blame the players the most for this. I guess they got what they wanted.

Huh? The players were locked out, they didn't strike. Also, they are on record stating that they were willing to operate under the current system while negotiating a new agreement. The NHL is the one who said "no."

18 of 30 teams are losing money. Nuff said...

[Mr. Colby]

recchi should know. maybe more than anyone in '04, he lost a lot of his abilities by missing that full year.

28-36-64 at age 38 suggests otherwise (7-9-16 in the playoffs)

[pens2005]

I mean, wouldn't that "/ownerlogic" hurt the players more? They get more money up-front currently, you have no idea what the future holds in terms of how the league goes, how their career goes, how contracts are depreciating assets vs. inflation, etc. Teams won't put up $10 and $12 million salaries if it means the cap hit is $10 and $12 million...players have to wait longer to be paid. That's why people have the option to take X amount of money upfront when they win the lottery or take it in annual payments. There's a large portion of people that pick the former.

Players aren't going to sign back loaded contracts...ever!

They either want them front loaded or just annually averaged out.

[pens2005]

All I know is that I wish Crosby would stop talking. He is making himself sound foolish.

[Tim Thomasen]

Thank you Fehr and NHLPA.

I'll agree, but blame the PA more. They are the ones that hired Fehr and had to know what would probably happen.

The PA hired Fehr for a reason. It's also why you don't see any players speaking poorly of Fehr - he's doing what they hired him for.

Which is why I blame the players the most for this. I guess they got what they wanted.

Huh? The players were locked out, they didn't strike. Also, they are on record stating that they were willing to operate under the current system while negotiating a new agreement. The NHL is the one who said "no."

This is a horrible argument. If the players continue to play under the old CBA , what motivation would there be for them to sign a new one that is worse for them? Nothing would get done to get the new CBA in place.

[tfrizz]

18 of 30 teams are losing money. Nuff said...

For anyone interested in the calculations, I just ran the numbers reported by Forbes in their The Business of Hockey list, which were from the 2010-11 season, to see what kind of difference the extra 7% would make.

Under the 57/43 split:

• League-wide revenue was $126.5-million
• 12 teams made a profit
  
  • 6 teams profited by $10-million or more
  • 2 teams profited by $5-million or more, but less than $10-million
• 18 teams took losses
  
  • 5 teams took losses of $5-million or less
  • 11 teams took losses of $10-million or less, but more than $5-million
• Average revenue was $4.22-million
• Toronto posted the highest operating income - $81.8-million
• Phoenix posted the lowest operating income - loss of $24.4-million

Under a 50/50 split:

• League-wide revenue would be $342.8-million ($216.3-million higher than 57/43)
• 20 teams would make a profit
  
  • 10 teams would profit by $10-million or more
  • 5 teams would profit by $5-million or more, but less than $10-million
• 10 teams would take a loss
  
  • 8 teams would take losses of $5-million or less
  • 1 teams would take losses of $10-million or less, but more than $5-million
• Average revenue would be $11.43-million
• Toronto would post the highest operating income - $95.3-million ($13.5-million than 57/43)
• Phoenix posted the lowest operating income - loss of $19.5-million ($4.9-million higher than 57/43)

If you were to assume no decline in revenue (holding steady or growing) then the shift in revenue over the course of 5 years would be $1.08-billion in favour of the owners. Also important to note that the drop in the salary cap ceiling would be approximately $7-million.

The four highest earning teams (Toronto, Montreal, NY Rangers, and Vancouver) - the only ones to earn over $20-million under the 57/43 split - would be the only teams to see an increase in revenue of $10-million or more.

[tfrizz]

I mean, wouldn't that "/ownerlogic" hurt the players more? They get more money up-front currently, you have no idea what the future holds in terms of how the league goes, how their career goes, how contracts are depreciating assets vs. inflation, etc. Teams won't put up $10 and $12 million salaries if it means the cap hit is $10 and $12 million...players have to wait longer to be paid. That's why people have the option to take X amount of money upfront when they win the lottery or take it in annual payments. There's a large portion of people that pick the former.

Players aren't going to sign back loaded contracts...ever!

They either want them front loaded or just annually averaged out.

Yes, but the 5% escalator would apply to increases as well as decreases in salary. So, let's say a player signed a 5 year deal with a first year value of $2-million... then the absolute best he could do is:

Year 1: $2,000,000
Year 2: $2,100,000
Year 3: $2,200,000
Year 4: $2,300,000
Year 5: $2,400,000

[no name]

The front loaded contract allows a player to retire early from the game without losing any real money. If i have 4 seasons of 1 million at the end of my contract it lowers the cap hit and i can retire at the end of my contract and only lose 4 million if i made big money in the first few years of my deal. good for the player and good for the owner "lowers cap hit., can sign better players. The NHL wants to end this with the 5% mark. This would stop all the cap circumvention deals that Detroit did. So all teams would play on a level playing field.

[tfrizz]

The front loaded contract allows a player to retire early from the game without losing any real money. If i have 4 seasons of 1 million at the end of my contract it lowers the cap hit and i can retire at the end of my contract and only lose 4 million if i made big money in the first few years of my deal. good for the player and good for the owner "lowers cap hit., can sign better players. The NHL wants to end this with the 5% mark. This would stop all the cap circumvention deals that Detroit did. So all teams would play on a level playing field.

It'll also result in players getting lower contracts, and cap hits, because their year-to-year salaries can't vary by more than 5% of the first year's value. To put it in perspective, Crosby's new contract pays him $12,000,000 per year; with the 5% escalator, his salary would not be allowed to vary by more than $600,000 from one year to the next. That means you'll never see that kind of money paid out in a single year again, because you can't vary it enough to offset the cap hit.

In other words, the 5% escalator will likely result in nothing but flat contracts being signed since the amount of variance is so small.

[shmenguin]

recchi should know. maybe more than anyone in '04, he lost a lot of his abilities by missing that full year.

28-36-64 at age 38 suggests otherwise (7-9-16 in the playoffs)

Those numbers were completely bogus

[Tim Thomasen]

recchi should know. maybe more than anyone in '04, he lost a lot of his abilities by missing that full year.

28-36-64 at age 38 suggests otherwise (7-9-16 in the playoffs)

Those numbers were completely bogus

Go on....

[Godric]

NHLPA... What a bunch of **** idiots

Growing sport.... but they just want to kill it

[Gaucho]

NHL... What a bunch of **** idiots

Growing sport.... but they just want to kill it

[Godric]

NHL... What a bunch of **** idiots

Growing sport.... but they just want to kill it

65%.

I can't put it on the owners anymore

[offsides]

NHL... What a bunch of **** idiots

Growing sport.... but they just want to kill it

65%.

I can't put it on the owners anymore

I thought hockey players were different than most other professional athletes. I was wrong.

[tfrizz]

NHL... What a bunch of **** idiots

Growing sport.... but they just want to kill it

65%.

I can't put it on the owners anymore

Hold on a minute. The NHLPA didn't ask explicitly for 65% of HRR.

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012 ... r-2012-13/

The NHLPA asked them to guarantee $1.9-billion and a 5% increase each year after that. It's a ridiculous request, but it's nowhere near the 65% being claimed by the NHL. It is exactly what it is - 57%. If revenue grows at 5% it'll still be 57% of HRR; if revenue grows at 7% it'll be 56% of HRR; if revenue grows by 3% it'll be 58% of HRR.

The idea of the NHLPA's share not being linked directly to revenue is insane, and I have a hard time believe this was even a serious proposal.

[tfrizz]

NHL... What a bunch of **** idiots

Growing sport.... but they just want to kill it

65%.

I can't put it on the owners anymore

I thought hockey players were different than most other professional athletes. I was wrong.

They are. For the most part, NHLers are much less educated than NFL and NBA players... since many NHLers only have a "high school" education while many NFL/NBA players have at least some college.

[columbia]

NHL... What a bunch of **** idiots

Growing sport.... but they just want to kill it

65%.

I can't put it on the owners anymore

I thought hockey players were different than most other professional athletes. I was wrong.

This might be the dumbest union ever.

[tfrizz]

NHL... What a bunch of **** idiots

Growing sport.... but they just want to kill it

65%.

I can't put it on the owners anymore

I thought hockey players were different than most other professional athletes. I was wrong.

This might be the dumbest union ever.

It's how unions work. All the power is put in the hands of a few - in this case it's the Fehr brothers - and the opinion of the majority of union members gets ignored. I don't know if I'd call it the dumbest ever... the UAW pushes so hard in the 80s that a bunch of car manufacturers closed up shop in the US and moved their operations to Mexico - where they paid workers less than $2/hour as opposed to $30/hour in the US.

I absolutely despise unions, but I also despise companies that try to take advantage of their employees - something that unions protect against.


Source: a sociology course I took as a 2nd-year elective that had an extensive chapter on unions

[Gabe]

The sporting world is a little different, but as a whole, don't kid yourself folks, unions are big businesses in their own right. They take in a lot of money in dues, and the average joe gets very little say in where that money goes.