Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Search
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
 All Forums
 Hockey Forums
Allow Anonymous Posting forum... General Hockey Chat
 2012 CBA News and Comments Allow Anonymous Users Reply to This Topic...
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 14

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3592 Posts

Posted - 12/05/2012 :  09:16:38  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Guest0649
Net loss = income (or total revenue) - expenses

where expenses are higher than income.

Is this what is described as net loss? If yes, then how do you know that the players' expenses have not gone down to match income?

Looks like by the numbers posted you mean revenue loss is $200M. The owners are even in a worse position than the players if you compare their revenue loss as well as their net loss to the players. So why don't the owners just give up on the $200M difference since they are losing even more than the players?

Perhaps it is not only the players that need an economics teacher.



I'm pretty sure that billionaire owners that run large business empires have a fairly good understanding of economics. I certainly trust them over a bunch of hockey players that for the most part stopped taking school seriously when they were in grade 8.

I believe in this case, "net loss" is accurate. Players collected about 1.8B last year over 7 months (Oct thru April), so they get a gross amount of about 225M per month. Subtract out your expenses, and 200M is probably accurate. This is what the players as a whole lose every month that the lockout continues.

The owners lose far less than the players - mainly because unlike the players, they do have expenses that are paid during the season. They also earn less than the players in terms of overall revenue. You might have heard, there is a labour dispute currently running over this very issue! The Maple Leafs, as the highest earning team in the NHL with 80M in profits, is losing about 6M a month (net, after expenses). Small potatoes for an empire that earns several billion a year.

Go to Top of Page

fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
899 Posts

Posted - 12/05/2012 :  10:44:54  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan

"I'm pretty sure that billionaire owners that run large business empires have a fairly good understanding of economics. I certainly trust them over a bunch of hockey players that for the most part stopped taking school seriously when they were in grade 8."




Wow! Best hope George Parros or Kevin Westgarth, both Princeton graduates, don't see this post! They are both on the player committee that met with the owners.

quick note from Wiki about George Parros;

'Parros played four years at Princeton University, where he totaled 52 points and 119 PIM in 111 games. He was named team captain for his senior season in 200203. While at Princeton, Parros majored in economics and wrote his senior thesis on the West Coast longshoremen's labor dispute. He was recently named the 4th smartest professional athlete by the Sporting News.'

He may beat you upside the noggin with his diploma!



And as far as trusting them more than the players, ask any Leafs fan about the Harold Ballard years! Ditto for the Pocklington Oilers.

Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8186 Posts

Posted - 12/05/2012 :  11:08:32  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
FER, I can pick needles out of haystacks too. For every Parros or Westgarth there about 100 Taylor Hall's or Jarome Iginla's. No disrespect to their intelligences but the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of NHL players are no more than high school grads when the enter the league. Some might go on to further their eduction after their careers but most don't.

As far as the owners go, again Pocklington and Ballard are great examples of the other side of the coin. But let's not forget there are highly respected owners in the NHL today and in the past.


One or two example of things are just that. One or two examples. I think Nux's comments were incredibly valid.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
899 Posts

Posted - 12/05/2012 :  12:02:09  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Again, Wow!

Firstly I was replying to Nuxfan's post with some tongue-in-cheek, as should have been evidenced by the smiley face.

It has been mentioned by others about the lack of intellectual savvy of the players collectively and I was merely rebutting with what I thought was an interesting tidbit about 2 players in particular that would not usually be expected to have that sort of educational pedigree, I heard this about Parros, back in the good ole' days, when there was actually hockey on TV.

Methinks your passion is starting to overtake your sense of humor my friend, not every post is a jab to affront yours, or anyone else's opinions.



Please note the non-confrontational smiley face.

PS. Nuxfan, I also thought your points were valid, I will try and refrain from posting anything frivolous in what are apparently becoming serious threads.



See above about this smiley face as well.
Go to Top of Page

Guest4350
( )

Posted - 12/05/2012 :  12:33:55  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
I believe in this case, "net loss" is accurate. Players collected about 1.8B last year over 7 months (Oct thru April), so they get a gross amount of about 225M per month. Subtract out your expenses, and 200M is probably accurate. This is what the players as a whole lose every month that the lockout continues.

The owners lose far less than the players - mainly because unlike the players, they do have expenses that are paid during the season. They also earn less than the players in terms of overall revenue. You might have heard, there is a labour dispute currently running over this very issue! The Maple Leafs, as the highest earning team in the NHL with 80M in profits, is losing about 6M a month (net, after expenses). Small potatoes for an empire that earns several billion a year.


Do the same analysis as you did with the players.

The owners expenses not including the players salary total is $1.2B (1.5-0.3). Not sure how much they can cut these expenses. Let's say $0.2B, means the owners are losing $1B this year or $143M per month. Or each owner is losing on average $47M/month. Not sure how Toronto is only losing $6M/month.

Based on your numbers for the players, each player would be losing ~$300k/month.
Go to Top of Page

Guest4350
( )

Posted - 12/05/2012 :  13:05:02  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4350
Do the same analysis as you did with the players.

The owners expenses not including the players salary total is $1.2B (1.5-0.3). Not sure how much they can cut these expenses. Let's say $0.2B, means the owners are losing $1B this year or $143M per month. Or each owner is losing on average $47M/month. Not sure how Toronto is only losing $6M/month.

Based on your numbers for the players, each player would be losing ~$300k/month.


For the players their revenue was 1.8B. Their expenses are $200M. Since they are have no other sources of revenue, their net loss this year is $200M which is $300k/player this year which is ~$42k/player per month.

I'm not sure if there is a proper economic term for what you are trying to say the players are losing out $1.6B. Maybe opportunity cost of the strike for the players is $1.6B and the owner's opportunity cost of the strike is $300M. I'll let some of the economics posters figure out the proper terminology for what you are trying to suggest.

All I'm saying is that this strike costs the owner much more than the players.
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1905 Posts

Posted - 12/05/2012 :  13:10:09  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Guest your math for individual team losses is way off. You are assuming the owners keep the majority of the revenue when in fact most teams expenses erode way too deep into the revenue. Most are likely losing way less as individual owners than the players are. A few teams such as the Leafs, Rangers etc are losing multiple millions per month but for most owners the pain is not as deep. Its future revenue, fan base, sponsorship, players who will not return to the NHL post lockout and individual team net worth that they are jeapordizing. I have read several articles today that stated yesterdays players meeting with the owners went well. It lasted into the AM and was the most productive since negotiations began.

quote:
Originally posted by Guest4350

quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
I believe in this case, "net loss" is accurate. Players collected about 1.8B last year over 7 months (Oct thru April), so they get a gross amount of about 225M per month. Subtract out your expenses, and 200M is probably accurate. This is what the players as a whole lose every month that the lockout continues.

The owners lose far less than the players - mainly because unlike the players, they do have expenses that are paid during the season. They also earn less than the players in terms of overall revenue. You might have heard, there is a labour dispute currently running over this very issue! The Maple Leafs, as the highest earning team in the NHL with 80M in profits, is losing about 6M a month (net, after expenses). Small potatoes for an empire that earns several billion a year.


Do the same analysis as you did with the players.

The owners expenses not including the players salary total is $1.2B (1.5-0.3). Not sure how much they can cut these expenses. Let's say $0.2B, means the owners are losing $1B this year or $143M per month. Or each owner is losing on average $47M/month. Not sure how Toronto is only losing $6M/month.

Based on your numbers for the players, each player would be losing ~$300k/month.

Go to Top of Page

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3592 Posts

Posted - 12/05/2012 :  13:28:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by fat_elvis_rocked

Again, Wow!

Firstly I was replying to Nuxfan's post with some tongue-in-cheek, as should have been evidenced by the smiley face.

It has been mentioned by others about the lack of intellectual savvy of the players collectively and I was merely rebutting with what I thought was an interesting tidbit about 2 players in particular that would not usually be expected to have that sort of educational pedigree, I heard this about Parros, back in the good ole' days, when there was actually hockey on TV.

Methinks your passion is starting to overtake your sense of humor my friend, not every post is a jab to affront yours, or anyone else's opinions.



Please note the non-confrontational smiley face.

PS. Nuxfan, I also thought your points were valid, I will try and refrain from posting anything frivolous in what are apparently becoming serious threads.



See above about this smiley face as well.



Its OK FER, I saw your smileys. There are certainly a few that did bother to use their school years wisely - the Canucks have several players out of the NCAA ranks (Bieksa, Higgins, VolpattiSchneider, Alberts, Raymond, Kesler, Tanev, Ballard), and quite a few of them did real degrees at Ivy League schools - Bieksa has a finance degree.

However, they are not the norm.
Go to Top of Page

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3592 Posts

Posted - 12/05/2012 :  13:42:11  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4350
Do the same analysis as you did with the players.

The owners expenses not including the players salary total is $1.2B (1.5-0.3). Not sure how much they can cut these expenses. Let's say $0.2B, means the owners are losing $1B this year or $143M per month. Or each owner is losing on average $47M/month. Not sure how Toronto is only losing $6M/month.

Based on your numbers for the players, each player would be losing ~$300k/month.


Your math is not right. If 30 teams are losing a collective 143M per month, then each team is losing on average 4.7M, not 47M. Some are more, some are less. Some are far less.

I believe they can cut their expenses significantly without hockey being played - I would expect a large majority of their expenses to be providing for the team - travel expenses are huge (probably 40-50M a year alone), benefits, stadium lease/upkeep, feeding/training team while in town, etc. These expenses go away with a lockout - the only expenses now would be non-hockey operational staff, and possibly cut down lease payments for a stadium they're not using.

The other point to consider is the percentage of revenue each side loses. In the case of the players, they are losing 100% of their revenue. In the case of owners, they are losing 100% of their hockey revenue, which is likely a small fraction of their overall empire revenue.

Both sides lose in a lockout, but one side loses a whole lot more - if owners stood to lose 100% of their income from this lockout, there would not have been a lockout.
Go to Top of Page

Guest4350
( )

Posted - 12/05/2012 :  13:54:59  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

Guest your math for individual team losses is way off. You are assuming the owners keep the majority of the revenue when in fact most teams expenses erode way too deep into the revenue. Most are likely losing way less as individual owners than the players are. A few teams such as the Leafs, Rangers etc are losing multiple millions per month but for most owners the pain is not as deep. Its future revenue, fan base, sponsorship, players who will not return to the NHL post lockout and individual team net worth that they are jeapordizing. I have read several articles today that stated yesterdays players meeting with the owners went well. It lasted into the AM and was the most productive since negotiations began.



Hopefully putting this all in once place will make more sense than the previous several posts from a couple of threads.

During hockey is played assuming a $3.3B Hockey related revenue.

Players revenue: $1.8B
Owners revenue not including players salary: $1.5B (3.3-1.8)

Assume players profit/loss: 1.8B - $0.4B (guess) = $1.4B; this is not public knowledge but a guess. Pick your number.

Owners profit/loss: $1.5B - $1.2B = $300M This we know since it a published figure.

--

During a strike though there is no revenue. Assume that the players and owners reduce their expenses by the same amount (not true but for sake of ease of calculation since players are individuals, they can cut their expenses better than owners since the owners still have to pay for infrastructure, management and staff...).

Assume players profit/loss: $0B (revenue) - $0.2B (guess at expenses) = net loss of $200M.

Since they are have no other sources of revenue, their net loss this year is $200M which is $29M/monrh which is ~$42k/player per month.

Owners profit/loss: $0B - $1.0B = $1B net loss.

The owners are losing $1B this year or $143M per month. Or each owner is losing on average $4.7M/month. Sorry I missed the decimal point the last time and Toronto losing $6M/month makes sense.

--

I'm not sure if there is a proper economic term for what the others are trying to say the players are losing out $1.6B. Maybe opportunity cost of the strike for the players is $1.6B and the owner's opportunity cost of the strike is $300M. I'll let some of the economics majors (hello George Parros) posters figure out the proper terminology.

I'd just like to have consistency in the numbers being thrown around and compare apples to apples instead of apples to iguanas.
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1905 Posts

Posted - 12/05/2012 :  13:58:45  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
All I can say about the numbers you have suggested is an old joke I have told for years.

Did you know that 78% of all statistics are made up on the spot

quote:
Originally posted by Guest4350

quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

Guest your math for individual team losses is way off. You are assuming the owners keep the majority of the revenue when in fact most teams expenses erode way too deep into the revenue. Most are likely losing way less as individual owners than the players are. A few teams such as the Leafs, Rangers etc are losing multiple millions per month but for most owners the pain is not as deep. Its future revenue, fan base, sponsorship, players who will not return to the NHL post lockout and individual team net worth that they are jeapordizing. I have read several articles today that stated yesterdays players meeting with the owners went well. It lasted into the AM and was the most productive since negotiations began.



Hopefully putting this all in once place will make more sense than the previous several posts from a couple of threads.

During hockey is played assuming a $3.3B Hockey related revenue.

Players revenue: $1.8B
Owners revenue not including players salary: $1.5B (3.3-1.8)

Assume players profit/loss: 1.8B - $0.4B (guess) = $1.4B; this is not public knowledge but a guess. Pick your number.

Owners profit/loss: $1.5B - $1.2B = $300M This we know since it a published figure.

--

During a strike though there is no revenue. Assume that the players and owners reduce their expenses by the same amount (not true but for sake of ease of calculation since players are individuals, they can cut their expenses better than owners since the owners still have to pay for infrastructure, management and staff...).

Assume players profit/loss: $0B (revenue) - $0.2B (guess at expenses) = net loss of $200M.

Since they are have no other sources of revenue, their net loss this year is $200M which is $29M/monrh which is ~$42k/player per month.

Owners profit/loss: $0B - $1.0B = $1B net loss.

The owners are losing $1B this year or $143M per month. Or each owner is losing on average $4.7M/month. Sorry I missed the decimal point the last time and Toronto losing $6M/month makes sense.

--

I'm not sure if there is a proper economic term for what the others are trying to say the players are losing out $1.6B. Maybe opportunity cost of the strike for the players is $1.6B and the owner's opportunity cost of the strike is $300M. I'll let some of the economics majors (hello George Parros) posters figure out the proper terminology.

I'd just like to have consistency in the numbers being thrown around and compare apples to apples instead of apples to iguanas.

Go to Top of Page

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3592 Posts

Posted - 12/05/2012 :  18:15:28  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4350
I'm not sure if there is a proper economic term for what the others are trying to say the players are losing out $1.6B. Maybe opportunity cost of the strike for the players is $1.6B and the owner's opportunity cost of the strike is $300M. I'll let some of the economics majors (hello George Parros) posters figure out the proper terminology.



I believe the correct economic term is "not getting paid".

The players are losing 1.8B if they lose the season, period. I don't know how you can look at it any other way. They get zero dollars for not playing, instead of 1.8B dollars for playing. I'm not sure how you calculate that players that average 2.1M a year in salary and are getting zero salary, are somehow only losing 350K per year (47K/month * 7 months). They are losing out on 2.1M a year - in addition to whatever they lay out in expenses to live while not working, which they must pay no matter what because they must live.

The owners, on the other hand, certainly lose out on revenues of 1.5B. But they also are not paying roughly 1.2B a year in expenses - expenses that they would otherwise have had to pay out were hockey being played. So the loss for the owners is ~300M. That is net revenue that they will not receive if there is no season.
Go to Top of Page

Guest4350
( )

Posted - 12/06/2012 :  08:33:19  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan

I believe the correct economic term is "not getting paid".

The owners, on the other hand, certainly lose out on revenues of 1.5B. But they also are not paying roughly 1.2B a year in expenses - expenses that they would otherwise have had to pay out were hockey being played. So the loss for the owners is ~300M. That is net revenue that they will not receive if there is no season.


How do you suppose the owners reduce their expenses of $1.2B by $900M to only $300M? Do the staff and management get laid off (remember I have already discounted that they don't have to pay the players)? GMs, scouts, admin... are still paid. Yes some staff have been laid off and salaries have been reduced but those are lower level staff (concession workers, security...).

Do the infrastructure (operations and maintenance) cost just disappear? Don't think so. The owners expenses are still high and my guess is that on average $4.7M/month per owner.

The players don't get paid so they lose all that revenue. But they can reduce their expenses significantly too. A player, like you or I if we lose our jobs, can reduce our expenses which I've shown for a single player is on average is $42k/month per player.

You are comparing "could have" money loss 1.8B vs 300M. I'm comparing actual cash flow (like on a balance sheet).

I agree the players lose more "could have" money than the owners. But in terms of current cash flow, the owners are losing big time.
Go to Top of Page

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3592 Posts

Posted - 12/06/2012 :  10:51:18  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4350
How do you suppose the owners reduce their expenses of $1.2B by $900M to only $300M? Do the staff and management get laid off (remember I have already discounted that they don't have to pay the players)? GMs, scouts, admin... are still paid. Yes some staff have been laid off and salaries have been reduced but those are lower level staff (concession workers, security...).

Do the infrastructure (operations and maintenance) cost just disappear? Don't think so. The owners expenses are still high and my guess is that on average $4.7M/month per owner.



Forget maintenance and employing a couple of scouts...the expenses that are associated with moving a team around to play are by far the biggest expenses that a team has. Travel for the team: all flights, hotels, per-diems. It will vary from team to team and its not published, but I'm guessing anywhere from 35-50M a season. I recall reading an article that suggested the Canucks spend 45-50M a year on team travel/accomodation, and they are on the high side due to geography.

On the smaller side, you have
- operations people - cooks for the team when they're in town, equipment people, trainers, ice crew to take care of the players when they're at home.
- stadium workers - all laid off in a lockout
- non-hockey admin - mostly laid off.

I would be surprised if team expenses were more than 2M a month, on average, for everything that is left while teams are not playing. Some teams will be higher than others (depending on lease agreements, land tax agreements, how many staff they keep, etc)

quote:

The players don't get paid so they lose all that revenue. But they can reduce their expenses significantly too. A player, like you or I if we lose our jobs, can reduce our expenses which I've shown for a single player is on average is $42k/month per player.

You are comparing "could have" money loss 1.8B vs 300M. I'm comparing actual cash flow (like on a balance sheet).

I agree the players lose more "could have" money than the owners. But in terms of current cash flow, the owners are losing big time.



Cash flow is not shown on a balance sheet, it is shown on a cash flow statement.

By my assertion, each side has revenue. The owners use a very large amount of that revenue to pay expenses, leaving a net income that is roughly 18% of their portion of revenue overall (250M net income on 1.5B in gross revenue). Players pay far less of their revenue as mandatory expenses (probably less than 20%), leaving them with a higher percentage of revenue lost.

I do understand where you are coming from, and I agree that from a pure cash flow from revenues point of view, a team is losing more than any individual player. Collectively, this is not the case - the players as a group are losing far more than the owners:

1. teams are part of larger corporate engines, that make a pile of money and are able to offset/absorb a short term cash bleed. The owners certainly care that they are losing money on their teams, but it is a cost most of them can easily absorb for a reasonably long time. Does BCE really care that the Leafs are losing 6M a month right now? Is Rexall's finances dented by 5M/month loss for the Oilers? No. Teams can absorb this cost of doing business for a very long time. Players can not.

2. Players have a finite earning potential, while teams go on forever. teams may lose money this year during the lockout, but once we go back to hockey, they will continue to earn money year after year after year, no matter what. Individual players will not. I'm sure this sort of distinction weighs heavily on a player like Crosby, who can make 10M a year, but only for the next 10 years. He has truly lost 10M that he can never ever get back, no matter how hard he tries.
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1905 Posts

Posted - 12/06/2012 :  14:28:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Heard today thru an article in the Toronto Star that if the NHL doesnt play 75% of scheduled games the majority of there sponsorship money is gone. Seems like they have to wrap this up soon or big money is gone. I am certain the majority of there sponsors will return but the level of sponsorship will be down considerably.

Also heard in a related article that Jacobson of the BOG and Ryan Miller got into a heated arguement in which Daly had to keep Jacobson at the table.
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8186 Posts

Posted - 12/06/2012 :  14:47:15  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Ryan Miller has been a mouthpiece for years. He's a knob and always will be. Although Jacobs (assuming you mean Boston owner John Jacobs) is also a meatball. He was one of, if not the only reason that Bettman needed a gag order on owners this time.

The worst thing about this entire situation is that John Q Hockeyfan has been punished because of the egos of people who already have more money than most of us can even dream of. And they are fighting over more.

It's like you and I arguing over a $2 dollar Timmy's coffee.

Dumb

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1905 Posts

Posted - 12/06/2012 :  15:52:02  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
So after 3 days of productive talks they spent one hour negotiating and now the PA is asking for federal mediators to rejoin the discussion as small details havent been worked out and have caused another impass.

Does anyone know if the PA or BOG voted on any of the offers proposed this week. Apparently both sides introduced proposals. The last one I heard of was the owners latest proposal which they brought the Make Whole provision to $300million which the players have stated is acceptable, with $50million of it earmarked for pension funds, which the players feel should not be in the pension, but rather returned by escrow payments. The arbitration and free agent rights to remain the same, 5% variance on contract value's year to year with 5 year limits on contracts on new contracts and 7 year on renewing free agents to current contract teams. Last i heard the 10 year cba and option of 8 years terming should the owners need an out was the last sticking point.

2 small point differences and this should be a done deal.
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1905 Posts

Posted - 12/06/2012 :  16:00:58  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=411086

Here is a link with mostly the same info I shared above
Go to Top of Page

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3592 Posts

Posted - 12/06/2012 :  21:16:39  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

2 small point differences and this should be a done deal.



Looks like those 2 small point differences were gigantic gulfs.

According to the article below: " term limit on player contracts is so important to league it's "the hill we'll die on.""

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=411086

Zoinks. And just when things seemed to be getting so close...
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8186 Posts

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  07:39:36  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Where are all the pro-player/pro-Fehr guys this morning?? I'm hoping to get their insight and thought on the past few days. I think anyone who's comments circle around the owners not giving up anything need to seriously reconsider their positions. The owners have moved from their original offer substantially, including the make whole going to $300 million. The owners agreed to the FA and arbitration rules staying the same even though it penalizes the teams. The 'hill the league is dying on' is one the max 5 year deal and 5% variance year to year. The players outright refusual of that (considering less than 5% of the league would be effected) is unbelievable.

The scary things the owners and players moved further in 1 1/2 days than Fehr and Bettman did in 4 months. Then, it takes less than an hour of Fehr getting back involved to destroy the house of cards.

In my opinion, Fehr is the worst thing to happen to the NHL sinc Allan Eagleson. He has the players fighting a war they can not win for something that does not improve the game or the league.



Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

Guest4350
( )

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  07:43:38  Reply with Quote
When did these things become a non-negotiable? Don't remember seeing this hard stance from the beginning.

The money has been settled and I thought that was the hard part. Then a curve ball with new non-negotiable items. Again the statement of everything is off the table. Didn't we hear that before, but they came back with a similar deal. How credible are these threats?
Go to Top of Page

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3592 Posts

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  08:03:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4350

When did these things become a non-negotiable? Don't remember seeing this hard stance from the beginning.

The money has been settled and I thought that was the hard part. Then a curve ball with new non-negotiable items. Again the statement of everything is off the table. Didn't we hear that before, but they came back with a similar deal. How credible are these threats?



I think these were probably always non-negotiable (at least in the eyes of the NHL), but were not worth talking about until the Really Big Problem (ie, money) was fixed. Except for the last week, the two sides have not been talking very much...
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8186 Posts

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  08:27:51  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4350

When did these things become a non-negotiable? Don't remember seeing this hard stance from the beginning.

The money has been settled and I thought that was the hard part. Then a curve ball with new non-negotiable items. Again the statement of everything is off the table. Didn't we hear that before, but they came back with a similar deal. How credible are these threats?



Bettman spoke exactly about this yesterday. His comments were originally the players issue was money. They said fix the money and we will have a deal. So the owners came back to 50/50 and included the $300 million in make whole. The players then said the issue was the contracting issues. Fix the contract issues and we will have a deal. So the owners came in and left FA and arbitration alone. Then the players started in on pensions issues.

That's when Bettman said enough is enough.

The owner have bent, bent, and bent some more. They are done. The players need to step up and accept some of this on their own.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
899 Posts

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  09:04:55  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I hear ya' Beans, and although I was pro-player when this started, I always stated that I thought the revenue sharing had to get to an owner's favored split.

I also think I stated that once negotiations became just that, negotiations, and the players' concerns were being addressed that they would not have much of a leg to stand on if this drug out because of them.

Looks like a bunch of legless stalwarts to me now.

I still have no love for the owners, as I still stand by their inability to control themselves, being the main cause of their own concerns, but I agree, the players are now starting to look like the ones with egg on their faces and it is indeed time to suck it up, get a deal done, get rid of Fehr and start the season.
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1905 Posts

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  09:24:57  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I was starting to find myself a pro-owner side until this morning when I read an article in which relates to how this last ditch effort may have been a smokescreen to dehead Fehr from the union. I posted in the Fehr thread but I will add it here as Fehr supporter information has been requested.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/sports/hockey/sorry+game+takes+another+downward+turn/7663879/story.html

I believe now that Fehr has been embarrassed, the league has withdrawn all consessions and withdrawn from negotiations, the new tactic is to wait the player's out and work a better deal while pressuring Fehr and his hard stance from the head of the union. Brilliant tactic IMO and the reason Bettman offered to recluse himself and Fehr from the negotiations. If the union see's it this way and unifies behind Fehr, this is going to last a long time.

Edited by - JOSHUACANADA on 12/07/2012 09:26:38
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1905 Posts

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  10:03:58  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/dowbiggin-are-nhl-players-ready-to-roll-over/article6078170/

Here is another article which more accurately conveys the tricks the NHL and Bettman may be up to. Paint the players and Fehr as the bad guys wrecking this sport, so that the Billionaire can make more millions than what was on the table this week. Bettman and the BOG never expected to come out of this smelling like rose's but now they have made the players smell like crap too.
Go to Top of Page

Guest4350
( )

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  11:25:23  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Bettman spoke exactly about this yesterday. His comments were originally the players issue was money. They said fix the money and we will have a deal. So the owners came back to 50/50 and included the $300 million in make whole. The players then said the issue was the contracting issues. Fix the contract issues and we will have a deal. So the owners came in and left FA and arbitration alone. Then the players started in on pensions issues.

The owner have bent, bent, and bent some more. They are done. The players need to step up and accept some of this on their own.

You are right the players didn't bend at all.

Let's see 57% HRR to 50%.
389M make whole to 300M
No limit on contract length to 8 years

That seems to me like the players bent just as much as the owners did. The owners also added new things in their proposal but the players can't?

All the owners had to do was to meet them in the middle of the last proposal, ignore the pension stuff and game on. Nope. Hardball stance and walking away and taking the puck with me.
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1905 Posts

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  16:00:33  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
http://www.vancouversun.com/mobile/sports/news/Sidney+Crosby+just+wants+play+hockey/7668813/story.html

I am back firmly entrenched on the players side in this dispute. Not that the demands of the BOG are too far to reach a deal, but that they are clearly working toward an end to this dispute. This article is in the Vancouver Sun. The players did not have clear indications that a line in the sand had been drawn and its the clearest indication that they thought the proposal they brought forth was what they believe the BOG would accept. I truly believe this is the best attempt by the union to save a season and the best attempt by the NHL to remove Fehr from negotiations.

If a insurance company paying a claim responded in legalize and I requested to see a lawyer before accepting and they pulled the offer away unless I did not seek representation, I think I would assume all was not on the level too.
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8186 Posts

Posted - 12/07/2012 :  18:45:21  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4350

quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Bettman spoke exactly about this yesterday. His comments were originally the players issue was money. They said fix the money and we will have a deal. So the owners came back to 50/50 and included the $300 million in make whole. The players then said the issue was the contracting issues. Fix the contract issues and we will have a deal. So the owners came in and left FA and arbitration alone. Then the players started in on pensions issues.

The owner have bent, bent, and bent some more. They are done. The players need to step up and accept some of this on their own.

You are right the players didn't bend at all.

Let's see 57% HRR to 50%.
389M make whole to 300M
No limit on contract length to 8 years

That seems to me like the players bent just as much as the owners did. The owners also added new things in their proposal but the players can't?

All the owners had to do was to meet them in the middle of the last proposal, ignore the pension stuff and game on. Nope. Hardball stance and walking away and taking the puck with me.



Not 50/50 with the make whole.
The players never accepted the $300 million make whole the NHL offered, the players did not agree.
I don't recall their initial offer including anything from a contract perspective. I might be wrong, but that 8 yr offer was a response to the NHL offer of 5 years. I could be wrong, but I think we might be comparing the unlimited length to the 8 yr offer compared to the old CBA and not the players original negotiation point.

As I said, I might be wrong on that. I'm not wrong on the first two.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1905 Posts

Posted - 12/08/2012 :  07:48:27  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The way I understand it the origional offer by the players which had no limit on contracts was there origional position. The fact they came down and negotiated to a 8 year position means they have bend or conceded to max termed contracts, not there origional position. The make whole provision may make this and the next few season greater than 50/50, but the owners can not honour the majority of the contracts signed this summer and previous without going above there set limit, again the players moved towards the NHL goals and the owner countered with an acceptable amount of $300 million. The players last proposal matched the owners make whole provisions just not the term or location it was allocated towards.

The arbitration rights removal from the owners first few offers was a non starter for the union, only after the owners backed off did they see the PA put a proposal of value to the owners. The length of the CBA has always been an issue or a negotiable piece in this years round of the CBA. If the owners bend on either the term of contracts or the length of the CBA for the other, this could have or should have been a done deal. Instead the NHL withdraws all conssession's and stepped away from negotiations. One party clearly wants this done now and the other is ready to wait at the detriment of the game.

quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

quote:
Originally posted by Guest4350

quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Bettman spoke exactly about this yesterday. His comments were originally the players issue was money. They said fix the money and we will have a deal. So the owners came back to 50/50 and included the $300 million in make whole. The players then said the issue was the contracting issues. Fix the contract issues and we will have a deal. So the owners came in and left FA and arbitration alone. Then the players started in on pensions issues.

The owner have bent, bent, and bent some more. They are done. The players need to step up and accept some of this on their own.

You are right the players didn't bend at all.

Let's see 57% HRR to 50%.
389M make whole to 300M
No limit on contract length to 8 years

That seems to me like the players bent just as much as the owners did. The owners also added new things in their proposal but the players can't?

All the owners had to do was to meet them in the middle of the last proposal, ignore the pension stuff and game on. Nope. Hardball stance and walking away and taking the puck with me.



Not 50/50 with the make whole.
The players never accepted the $300 million make whole the NHL offered, the players did not agree.
I don't recall their initial offer including anything from a contract perspective. I might be wrong, but that 8 yr offer was a response to the NHL offer of 5 years. I could be wrong, but I think we might be comparing the unlimited length to the 8 yr offer compared to the old CBA and not the players original negotiation point.

As I said, I might be wrong on that. I'm not wrong on the first two.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!


Edited by - JOSHUACANADA on 12/08/2012 07:52:14
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8186 Posts

Posted - 12/08/2012 :  08:14:27  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Well, I have been proven wrong, so will stick to my word and back away.


My final comment on this is:

To Joshua's point, the NHLPA stated that dropping the arbitration rights was a not starter. Fair enough. So why, when the NHL has not starters that the PA refuses to address, is that the owners not compromising. On part that people don't seem to get is their issues with how owners overpay players has to be managed in the CBA. If the owners were to say screw it, lets go with the CBA as the payers want and have an agreement between the owners to not do contracts longer than 5 yrs will immediately put the NHL in breech of the CBA. Every detail of how a standard player contract is managed has to be in the CBA.

So the PA is allowed to have non-starters, but the NHL can not. But I am the one that is showing bias.

I'll leave you with that I view as the defining moment of this negotiation to this point.

By the time commissioner Gary Bettman met reporters, he was in a rage over the enthusiasm Donald Fehr expressed while characterizing the status of negotiations.

"I find it almost incomprehensible he did that," said Bettman, who shook as he spoke.

He and deputy commissioner Bill Daly made it clear the league would need the union to include three key elements before any deal is signed:

A 10-year term for the CBA, with a mutual reopener after eight years (the NHLPA offered eight years, with an option to opt out after Year 6).
no compliance buyouts (buyouts of player contracts that don't count against a team's salary cap).
contract term limits of five years, which Daly described as "the hill we will die on."

"What we got today, quite frankly and disappointingly, missed the mark on all three respects," said Daly. "So for the union to suggest somehow we are close, is cherry picking and it's unfortunate."



Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1905 Posts

Posted - 12/08/2012 :  08:35:56  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I agree on all of your points as these were the owners requests. The players felt by moving towards the owners requests on all 3 issues that the owners would see the concessions and either accept or counter in a meet in the middle position. Just cause one side says this is how it has to be or no deal, doesnt mean the other side has to roll over. It was very close, but the owners chose not to negotiate any longer, take it or leave it and then withdraw all concessions which is the reason this has lasted 3 more days with no end in sight. I have said in the other Fehr post that the union could have put a new proposal in a meet in the middle position, but Fehr is a person not to deal from weakness and I dont know how strong the Union feels on there position, as there are too many moving parts.

Edited by - JOSHUACANADA on 12/08/2012 09:21:01
Go to Top of Page

Guest0649
( )

Posted - 12/09/2012 :  14:38:50  Reply with Quote
Interesting take on the shorter contract length.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/49008-Shorter-contract-lengths-would-be-curse-in-disguise.html

Maybe the owners aren't really trying to save themselves from own stupidity. I can see how this can be a point of contention 6 to 10 years from now.
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1905 Posts

Posted - 12/17/2012 :  12:37:02  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I wish I had more to post. This seems like the right forum to ask this question. If the Union decertifies and the NHL moves to suspend operations, making the current player contracts null and void, whats to stop a few of these owners from rebranding there teams to something not the NHL and signing these now free agents. There is no collective bargining agreement, no restricted free agents and players no longer need to insure there player contracts with the NHL.

Could a league rise from the ashes without the collective nit wits on the NHL board of governers. I am not calling all the owners nit wits, but a few doves as they have been called are player friendly. There are no longer territorial rights to be infringed upon, so another team could set up shop right next door to the Leafs and Canadians, hell 5 could set up shop in Ontario alone. I think decertification and suspension of operations by the NHL and union could lead this down a strange path.

Of the current NHL teams do any of them have an exclusivity contract with there rinks which would prevent another professional team from playing hockey in there rink. Would a suspension of operations relieve them of these exclusivity clauses?

Another question I have, when the last lockout happened there was an offer on the table to buy the entire NHL by 1 interested group and a group of retired players trying to set up a rebranded WHL. Has anyone heard anything similar this lockout.
Go to Top of Page

Guest9880
( )

Posted - 12/28/2012 :  19:15:59  Reply with Quote
How can you have a credible negotiation team by the owners when they keep saying the offer is off the table then come back with the same package and meeting the players in the middle? How are the players supposed to trust anything the owners say when their ultimatums don't mean diddly squat?

Dec 6: We can't work with the union rep. All offers we make so far is off the table and hissy fit on full display about how bad the player's rep is to the game.
Dec. 28: Oh here is our last offer and we'll meet you half way on some stuff.

1. Why the hell did it take them 22 days to come up with that?
2. How is this even bargaining in good faith? Bettman has lied everytime he has said all concessions made is off the table, but then comes back with an improved offer incorporating the old concessions. Stop lying and we'll trust you. If anything get rid of Bettman from the negotiations because he can't be trusted.

It could have been hours, heck seconds and we could be playing in a few days. I'm no negotiating tactician, but even I saw it coming.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=412368
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1905 Posts

Posted - 12/31/2012 :  10:33:13  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The new offer from the NHL has a salary cap of 60 million for the upcoming 2013 season. Does anyone know what the salary cap was suppose to be with the old math formula. I think it was suppose to be $70.5 million. That seems like a pretty steep decline of $10.5 million per team.

$60million x 30 teams = $1,800,000,000 is more than the 50% of $3,300,000,000. from last year which would be $1,650,000,000. But that is assuming all teams spend to the cap. Too bad the Owners proposal didnt have a system in which one team could buy the other teams cap space. As a matter of fact I think the owners proposal has a few inclusion in it which prevent one team from buying the other teams cap space.

Another inclusion which has worked to the players favor has been the inclusion of a one time player buyout, which would count against the players share but not the teams cap. I like this as I am certain we would all like to see certain players, bought out at a reduced rate, but allowing another team which would be leary of a long term or too high contract, but would take the risk with a shorter contract. I am certain Redden will be back in the NHL next year and Gomez will be finding a new home.

Edited by - JOSHUACANADA on 12/31/2012 14:15:00
Go to Top of Page

Guest8338
( )

Posted - 01/01/2013 :  03:57:38  Reply with Quote
xcellent post by 9880.
Go to Top of Page

Guest9880
( )

Posted - 01/01/2013 :  17:50:59  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
$60million x 30 teams = $1,800,000,000 is more than the 50% of $3,300,000,000. from last year which would be $1,650,000,000. But that is assuming all teams spend to the cap.

That is also assuming the NHL will make anywhere close to $3.3B the next few years.

That's alot of people they have pissed off. They will have to reduce ticket prices but jacking up food and drink prices though.
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1905 Posts

Posted - 01/02/2013 :  08:03:34  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I wasn't assuming future revenue at all. The cap is based on projections, based on prior revenue. If I assume anything at all it would be that if the puck is dropped by Jan 15-18th, as is the NHL's hope, revenue for this year will drop sharply. Too many sponsorship and games lost to reach anywhere near last years income. I would go as far as saying $3.3 billion might be unattainable for the next 2 years.
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9880

quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
$60million x 30 teams = $1,800,000,000 is more than the 50% of $3,300,000,000. from last year which would be $1,650,000,000. But that is assuming all teams spend to the cap.

That is also assuming the NHL will make anywhere close to $3.3B the next few years.

That's alot of people they have pissed off. They will have to reduce ticket prices but jacking up food and drink prices though.

Go to Top of Page

Guest9880
( )

Posted - 01/05/2013 :  06:20:54  Reply with Quote
This is getting silly. $60 or $65M cap for the season don't mean nothing if your revenue drops like a stone. Hello escrow at 30%. Meet in the middle at $62.5M call it a day.

Buy out, I like it that they bumped it to 2 per team. This should count as part of the players share. Get over it PA. If a player got paid, then it is the player's share. Not sure if either side is willing to go 50-50 on this, but if it is the sticking point, then it should be 50-50.

No penalty for false HRR reporting. Nice one. Umm my revenue was -$100M, so you players owe me money. What I falsely reported my revenue? Oops, it was an honest mistake. Bankruptcy. Good luck getting your money back.

Oh yeah, why the heck did it take so long to figure out the "honest mistake"?

If I was the mediator, cut every difference in half. Neither side will like it but too bad, that's what negotiations are all about. The final product neither side will like. If one side reject the solution, public shaming.

It is clear that neither side trusts the other in this negotiation. Players don't trust the owners and Bettman because Bettman and the owners lie. Owners don't trust Fehr and the cattles because Fehr doesn't play the negotaition game like they expected and well, you just can't trust cattles. Hard to have progress if they are wondering if they are being screwed over by the other guy.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 14 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
Jump To:
Snitz Forums 2000 Go To Top Of Page