2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[princedpw]

Another step down this line of thought is that any upcoming free agents might be more inclined to sign with a team who did not double cross players, unlike those teams who signed big free agent deals with every intention of trying to bargain 17% off during the CBA.

I thought of that too, though I somewhat doubt it.

On one hand the league is a free-market system where teams vie to be the highest bidder for UFA services (players willmost likely always go for the $). On the other hand it's run like some kind of socialist business system where the highest earners (well all players really) give up money so that a league owned team can  remain in a market where they're not profitable. What kind of business model is this?

A further thought on my previous point: Imagine being a player who just signed a retirement contract in the past few years. Those players decided what team they wanted to commit to, some left $ on the table for term, and now they're facing a 17% cut of their entire career's worth of earnings.

If there's a side to support here, it's the players. Nothing they've done has been underhanded, conspiratorial or dishonest. They simply play the game and ask for salaries consistent with the market value.

The owners on the other hand contradict themselves at every turn, and support and create a business model that just doesn't work (although it's quite profitable). Bettman (or Daly) said something to the effect that the last CBA was "too fair" to the players. Well that's all good and fine but the players took whatever the owners put forth.

Again the owners screw themselves over (see: huge long deals, tons of money handed out, not enough corresponding revenue) and ultimately expect the fans to pay for it. The same fans who continue to pay higher and higher ticket prices every year.

There are relatively few extremely long deals and many of the teams (Chicago, Rangers, Philly - now LA) signing those deals can easily afford them. The existence of a tiny number of long, large deals is almost insignificant when thinking about overall league expenditures.  The problem is that the floor is too high and the average salary too high for the bottom third revenue-generating teams.  I'm not saying that this problem *should* necessarily be solved on the backs of the players, but if I had to guess, it probably will.  History suggest the players always fold when owners take the hard line and Bettman knows it.

I don't see the owners screwing themselves over at any point in time.  I see them getting richer and richer with each lockout with increased cost controls and increasing revenues.  Screwing the fans? Yes. The players? Somewhat.

 

[Rebel_1812]

The most interesting part of this particular CBA negotiation, in my opinion, is the fact that the players are not disputing the figures coming out of the league with respect to the losses many teams are realizing.

No, I think the issue is more centred around what those losses mean.

Yeah Gary Bettmen trumps the increasing revenues out of one side of his mouth.  How he as a good business leader grew the game and etc.  Yet out of the other side of his mouth becries the teams losing money in markets he wanted to go to.  I would love to see Gary Bettmen explain how his insistence on keeping a team in PHX and that team losing money year after year is the players fault.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

Another step down this line of thought is that any upcoming free agents might be more inclined to sign with a team who did not double cross players, unlike those teams who signed big free agent deals with every intention of trying to bargain 17% off during the CBA.

I thought of that too, though I somewhat doubt it.

On one hand the league is a free-market system where teams vie to be the highest bidder for UFA services (players willmost likely always go for the $). On the other hand it's run like some kind of socialist business system where the highest earners (well all players really) give up money so that a league owned team can  remain in a market where they're not profitable. What kind of business model is this?

A further thought on my previous point: Imagine being a player who just signed a retirement contract in the past few years. Those players decided what team they wanted to commit to, some left $ on the table for term, and now they're facing a 17% cut of their entire career's worth of earnings.

If there's a side to support here, it's the players. Nothing they've done has been underhanded, conspiratorial or dishonest. They simply play the game and ask for salaries consistent with the market value.

The owners on the other hand contradict themselves at every turn, and support and create a business model that just doesn't work (although it's quite profitable). Bettman (or Daly) said something to the effect that the last CBA was "too fair" to the players. Well that's all good and fine but the players took whatever the owners put forth.

Again the owners screw themselves over (see: huge long deals, tons of money handed out, not enough corresponding revenue) and ultimately expect the fans to pay for it. The same fans who continue to pay higher and higher ticket prices every year.

There are relatively few extremely long deals and many of the teams (Chicago, Rangers, Philly - now LA) signing those deals can easily afford them. The existence of a tiny number of long, large deals is almost insignificant when thinking about overall league expenditures.  The problem is that the floor is too high and the average salary too high for the bottom third revenue-generating teams.  I'm not saying that this problem *should* necessarily be solved on the backs of the players, but if I had to guess, it probably will.  History suggest the players always fold when owners take the hard line and Bettman knows it.

I don't see the owners screwing themselves over at any point in time.  I see them getting richer and richer with each lockout with increased cost controls and increasing revenues.  Screwing the fans? Yes. The players? Somewhat.

Some are definitely with teams that can afford them, I agree.

I was thinking mainly of when they were signed. Kovalchuk with the Devils who have attendance issues. Dipietro with the Islanders (Yashin comes to mind as well), Nash with Columbus Weber with Nashville and Parise and Suter with Minnesota. Lecavalier in Tampa. That's roughly what? 600M (or more) in contracts on teams that have financial issues?

Kane in Winnipeg, Eberle and Hall in Edmonton (not huge terms but large dollars). Where do those contracts end up next if they are @ 6M now?

One could argue the Luongo deal as they're looking to send him to Florida.

The more I think about it the more examples come up.

When I said the owners screwed themselves, I mean they've created everything about this situation. They signed the deals, they created the last CBA. They want to keep teams in non-profitable markets etc.

Do I think they end up as the ones who bear the financial brunt of the lockout? Maybe not the owners in Toronto, NY, Philly and all the other teams in financially secure markets. I really do believe though that this lockout is the death (to relocation) of at least 2 NHL franchises. Why that couldn't have been done earlier and a lockout avoided is the question I can't seem to answer.

 

[Kin]

Yeah Gary Bettmen trumps the increasing revenues out of one side of his mouth.  How he as a good business leader grew the game and etc.  Yet out of the other side of his mouth becries the teams losing money in markets he wanted to go to.  I would love to see Gary Bettmen explain how his insistence on keeping a team in PHX and that team losing money year after year is the players fault.

Well, there are lots of examples. Take the Islanders. The Islanders have been tragically mismanaged for the better part of 20 years. Their owner has been unable to convince his municipality to chip in for an arena and doesn't have either the resources or the interest in funding one himself despite a modern building being integral to the NHL's business model right now. In what world should a organization with a record of objective failure and trainwreck management like the Islanders be profitable? The Islanders complaining about losing money would be like Lehman brothers complaining about their stock dropping.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Yeah Gary Bettmen trumps the increasing revenues out of one side of his mouth.  How he as a good business leader grew the game and etc.  Yet out of the other side of his mouth becries the teams losing money in markets he wanted to go to.  I would love to see Gary Bettmen explain how his insistence on keeping a team in PHX and that team losing money year after year is the players fault.

Well, there are lots of examples. Take the Islanders. The Islanders have been tragically mismanaged for the better part of 20 years. Their owner has been unable to convince his municipality to chip in for an arena and doesn't have either the resources or the interest in one himself despite a modern building being integral to the NHL's business model right now. In what world should a organization with a record of objective failure and trainwreck management like the Islanders be profitable? The Islanders complaining about losing money would be like Lehman brothers complaining about their stock dropping.

The Islanders need:
1)  New ownership
2) A better business model of management
3) Lots and lots of hope (for survival in the NHL)!

It's worst than sad when a team that enjoyed early to mid success via their Cup winning days and beyond, as been allowed to wallow in it's misery for as long as they have. 

 

[Deebo]

Yeah Gary Bettmen trumps the increasing revenues out of one side of his mouth.  How he as a good business leader grew the game and etc.  Yet out of the other side of his mouth becries the teams losing money in markets he wanted to go to.  I would love to see Gary Bettmen explain how his insistence on keeping a team in PHX and that team losing money year after year is the players fault.

Well, there are lots of examples. Take the Islanders. The Islanders have been tragically mismanaged for the better part of 20 years. Their owner has been unable to convince his municipality to chip in for an arena and doesn't have either the resources or the interest in one himself despite a modern building being integral to the NHL's business model right now. In what world should a organization with a record of objective failure and trainwreck management like the Islanders be profitable? The Islanders complaining about losing money would be like Lehman brothers complaining about their stock dropping.

The Islanders need:
1)  New ownership
2) A better business model of management
3) Lots and lots of hope (for survival in the NHL)!

It's worst than sad when a team that enjoyed early to mid success via their Cup winning days and beyond, as been allowed to wallow in it's misery for as long as they have. 

They need a new arena.

 

[Fanatic]

Seldom do I agree with Don Cherry..... but today I do.

Don Cherry‏@CoachsCornerCBC
I don't blame the Europeans for going to play in Europe but you millionaires you're supposed to be a union. Stay together and fight the good Fight on this side of the ocean instead of going over and taking jobs from some poor guy trying to make a living

 

[Kin]

Seldom do I agree with Don Cherry..... but today I do.

Don Cherry‏@CoachsCornerCBC
I don't blame the Europeans for going to play in Europe but you millionaires you're supposed to be a union. Stay together and fight the good Fight on this side of the ocean instead of going over and taking jobs from some poor guy trying to make a living

I don't get any part of that. How does this make them less of a union? Why is it ok for a European to take another European's job but not a North American? More over, why should anyone feel like they shouldn't continue to work in their chosen profession because their current employers locked them out?

This would be like saying that while the lockout is underway the owners shouldn't run their other businesses.

 

[maplesyrup]

I think Cherry is confused. It's totally okay to go work elsewhere but where it's a no-no, is to cross a picket line and there just isn't one here... and now I'm confused. Is Cherry now the voice of displaced mediocre European hockey players? 

 

[Bates]

I wonder if NHL players are willing to play for nothing in Europe this winter why are they so adamant that they get 54% of NHL revenues?  Can they not see that they would be better at less than 50% of HHR than missing a sizeable portion of this season.  They will not gain financially by not making an agreement.

 

[bustaheims]

I think Cherry is confused. It's totally okay to go work elsewhere but where it's a no-no, is to cross a picket line and there just isn't one here... and now I'm confused. Is Cherry now the voice of displaced mediocre European hockey players?

I think Cherry's just an angry old man looking for something to be mad about. If the players were on strike, he might have a point. If it's your union that's decided you're not working, then, yeah, there's some responsibility on your part to at least support the process by not working - at least, in the early stages of the strike. In a lockout, however, not so much.

 

[Rebel_1812]

Yeah Gary Bettmen trumps the increasing revenues out of one side of his mouth.  How he as a good business leader grew the game and etc.  Yet out of the other side of his mouth becries the teams losing money in markets he wanted to go to.  I would love to see Gary Bettmen explain how his insistence on keeping a team in PHX and that team losing money year after year is the players fault.

Well, there are lots of examples. Take the Islanders. The Islanders have been tragically mismanaged for the better part of 20 years. Their owner has been unable to convince his municipality to chip in for an arena and doesn't have either the resources or the interest in one himself despite a modern building being integral to the NHL's business model right now. In what world should a organization with a record of objective failure and trainwreck management like the Islanders be profitable? The Islanders complaining about losing money would be like Lehman brothers complaining about their stock dropping.

The Islanders need:
1)  New ownership
2) A better business model of management
3) Lots and lots of hope (for survival in the NHL)!

It's worst than sad when a team that enjoyed early to mid success via their Cup winning days and beyond, as been allowed to wallow in it's misery for as long as they have. 

They need a new arena.

That is what PHX said.  Just because you build it doesn't mean they will come, and then you have to worry about paying for said arena.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

I think Cherry's just an angry old man looking for something to be mad about. If the players were on strike, he might have a point. If it's your union that's decided you're not working, then, yeah, there's some responsibility on your part to at least support the process by not working - at least, in the early stages of the strike. In a lockout, however, not so much.

I think his senility is just evident every time he opens his mouth now.

 

[Rebel_1812]

I think Cherry is confused. It's totally okay to go work elsewhere but where it's a no-no, is to cross a picket line and there just isn't one here... and now I'm confused. Is Cherry now the voice of displaced mediocre European hockey players?

I think Cherry's just an angry old man looking for something to be mad about. If the players were on strike, he might have a point. If it's your union that's decided you're not working, then, yeah, there's some responsibility on your part to at least support the process by not working - at least, in the early stages of the strike. In a lockout, however, not so much.

I think your being pedantic and going by the letter of the definition of a scab when you say you must cross a picket line to be one.  The whole reason that behavior became taboo, was because you were putting someone else out of work.  The NHLers are putting other hockey players out of work by going to Europe to play.  In that sense they are scabs.

 

[Kin]

That is what PHX said.  Just because you build it doesn't mean they will come, and then you have to worry about paying for said arena.

But Phoenix, or Glendale rather, is a questionable hockey market. Suburban New York City isn't.

 

[Kin]

I think your being pedantic and going by the letter of the definition of a scab when you say you must cross a picket line to be one.  The whole reason that behavior became taboo, was because you were putting someone else out of work.

That's not really true. If someone is a scab then they're crossing a picket line which means that the person whose job they're filling isn't working anyway. The reason it's taboo is because you're hurting another person's ability to bargain effectively. A NHL player looking for work in Europe isn't hurting anyone elses ability to bargain for themselves.

 

[BrownRolo]

So TSN is showing KHL highlights now and apparently there are a few North American broadcasters who are interested in showing KHL games and may be in talks with the KHL to make a distribution deal. I think this is great! Puts a lot of pressure on the owners to negotiate a deal.

What do you guys think?

 

[maplesyrup]

Giddy-up! I'll watch.

 

[jdh1]

I wonder if NHL players are willing to play for nothing in Europe this winter why are they so adamant that they get 54% of NHL revenues?  Can they not see that they would be better at less than 50% of HHR than missing a sizeable portion of this season.  They will not gain financially by not making an agreement.

Agreed,I think a 50/50 split is a fair deal,this whole lockout thing could have been avoided.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Seldom do I agree with Don Cherry..... but today I do.

Don Cherry‏@CoachsCornerCBC
I don't blame the Europeans for going to play in Europe but you millionaires you're supposed to be a union. Stay together and fight the good Fight on this side of the ocean instead of going over and taking jobs from some poor guy trying to make a living

I don't get any part of that. How does this make them less of a union? Why is it ok for a European to take another European's job but not a North American? More over, why should anyone feel like they shouldn't continue to work in their chosen profession because their current employers locked them out?

This would be like saying that while the lockout is underway the owners shouldn't run their other businesses.

It's a silly argument to use. It's like being upset that European hockey players have come to North America and taken jobs from good ol' Canadian/American boys.

If you're at the bottom of the skill pool, your job is always in jeopardy. C'est la vie.