Jump to content

Rant


Guest aziz

Recommended Posts

This is "or find another league" thing is a fantasy.

The NHLPA is a legall recognized entity that the NHL has negotiated with. There are laws in place that would trigger, at least, NLRB review and quite possibly would get more attention in Alberta and Quebec from their LRBs.

We have to stop presenting pie in the sky ideas as some sort of alternative just becaue we want hockey.

Not to mention that, for example, Sidney Crosby and Alex Ovechkin among others have existing deals that would need to be honored and without that CBA they wouldn't be able to weasel their way into some "escrow provision" or the like.

I realize some people think that the stupid players are at fault for accepting the offers made by the owners and that the players should just do the smart thing and accept the offer made by the owners but I don't think the players see it quite the same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One difference might be that the Justice Dept would likely consider the NHL a monopoly, whereas fast food workers can always try to get a job at BK if they don't like McD's policies.

that's the thing to it, though. there are lots and lots and lots of other hockey leagues around a player could choose. the NHL is only a monopoly in that it pays far and away more than any other hockey league, to the point where the other ones aren't really an option. a player might not like the NHL's policies, but to go elsewhere would involve a >75% pay cut, so they are "trapped" and complain about other people "looting" the league.

But even if they could get away with it legally, do you really think they'd follow their own rules? They don't now, some team (Flyers) is always trying to get around the rules to sign the players they want. There's just no way that the Leafs, with their license to print money, are going to tie their own hands just to keep Phoenix in the league.

dunno. with the 18 teams reportedly losing money, though, that is a big enough block to get through whatever language they need, isn't it? toronto and philly might not like it, but 18 versus 12 favors one side decidedly.

like i said, the prevaling laws and sympathies say it will never happen. i just don't think that's a good thing. and if i hear r8-driving kris versteeg talk about "looting" any more, i'll scream. freaking donald brashear drove a lambo, didn't he? i mean, come on, how much are these guys suffering that they deserve people be in their corner against anyone? they aren't the 1%, they are the 0.001%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's the thing to it, though. there are lots and lots and lots of other hockey leagues around a player could choose. the NHL is only a monopoly in that it pays far and away more than any other hockey league, to the point where the other ones aren't really an option. a player might not like the NHL's policies, but to go elsewhere would involve a >75% pay cut, so they are "trapped" and complain about other people "looting" the league.

There are lots and lots of other baseball leagues too, but that didn't stop the Supreme Court from ruling that MLB's reserve clause was unconstitutional back in the '60s. Like I said, I'm no lawyer but I think these big pro sports leagues are treated differently by the courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and that the players should just do the smart thing and accept the offer made by the owners but I don't think the players see it quite the same way.

no, that's true. they are looking at the untenable suggestion that their average salary drop to a mere $2mil, and that can not be swallowed. it is an outrage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

collective bargining is laughably out of place, imo, given the nature and straight up affluence of "labor" in this situation.

that's where you're missing - it's got nothing to do with the amount of money it's the fact that there is a symbiotic relationship going on here. The NHL is extant only because of the players it attracts. The players live the rock-star life because of the opportunities afforded by the NHL. Face it my friend it's an entertainment business and entertainment functions differently than XYZ Corp.

Leonardo Di Caprio is worth $20 million because he puts asses in the seats. Likewise Ovechkin and Crosby and Giroux etc. Studios *could* say they're being taken advantage of by Leo and his agent but in the end everybody wins. That's just the nature of the beast.

Why is it so unreasonable for the players to have a voice in how their business is run?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are lots and lots of other baseball leagues too, but that didn't stop the Supreme Court from ruling that MLB's reserve clause was unconstitutional back in the '60s. Like I said, I'm no lawyer but I think these big pro sports leagues are treated differently by the courts.

they are. i'm just pointless bitching. union sympathy is ingrained, even when we are talking about a labor pool of multimillioniares. as rad said, there is no point to my train of thought, there is no realistic outcome to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they are. i'm just pointless bitching. union sympathy is ingrained, even when we are talking about a labor pool of multimillioniares. as rad said, there is no point to my train of thought, there is no realistic outcome to it.

It is ingrained to the extent that it became a part of law as a result of the abuses of management towards workers.

To turn around and insist that the players are ingrates for not playing for less money than they were offered in a free, fair and open negotiation with the owners is deliberately myopic.

The players can insist on being paid whatever they want. The owners are the ones who deciide to sign them at the number.

Nothing has ever forced the owners to run their businesses in a magnificently irresponsible manner. They chose to do that all on their own.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's where you're missing - it's got nothing to do with the amount of money it's the fact that there is a symbiotic relationship going on here. The NHL is extant only because of the players it attracts. The players live the rock-star life because of the opportunities afforded by the NHL. Face it my friend it's an entertainment business and entertainment functions differently than XYZ Corp.

Leonardo Di Caprio is worth $20 million because he puts asses in the seats. Likewise Ovechkin and Crosby and Giroux etc. Studios *could* say they're being taken advantage of by Leo and his agent but in the end everybody wins. That's just the nature of the beast.

Why is it so unreasonable for the players to have a voice in how their business is run?

they should have a say equal to their value to the business, individually. di caprio can say, "pay me X or i won't be in your picture" or "change the script or i won't be in your picture", and he thus has his input. he puts butts in the seats, so he is able to dictate how he is treated/compensated. *his* value gives *him* that power. same thing with crosby, ovechkin and giroux. bruce willis has less input. in the same way that versteeg, daymond langkow, or shawn horcroff have less input in the form of lower salary expectations. and then you have the david carusos and jody shelleys and jared bolls who should just be happy to be working.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they should have a say equal to their value to the business, individually. di caprio can say, "pay me X or i won't be in your picture" or "change the script or i won't be in your picture", and he thus has his input. he puts butts in the seats, so he is able to dictate how he is treated/compensated. *his* value gives *him* that power. same thing with crosby, ovechkin and giroux. bruce willis has less input. in the same way that versteeg, daymond langkow, or shawn horcroff have less input in the form of lower salary expectations. and then you have the david carusos and jody shelleys and jared bolls who should just be happy to be working.

I don't think they should have "an equal" share - I think they should have the share that the market (as determined by the proclivities of the people who pay the money) demands.

If that share - as determined by the owners' own actions - is 57/43 so be it.

Why should there be ANY artificially imposed breakdown of the revenues?

What other industry do the owners compete in that allows them - solely through negotiations with an organized collective union - to artificially determine the amount of revenue that will be allocated in individual contracts?

The owners have absolutely no leg to stand on to demand an immediate 50/50 split. None.

At all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they should have a say equal to their value to the business, individually. di caprio can say, "pay me X or i won't be in your picture" or "change the script or i won't be in your picture", and he thus has his input. he puts butts in the seats, so he is able to dictate how he is treated/compensated. *his* value gives *him* that power. same thing with crosby, ovechkin and giroux. bruce willis has less input. in the same way that versteeg, daymond langkow, or shawn horcroff have less input in the form of lower salary expectations. and then you have the david carusos and jody shelleys and jared bolls who should just be happy to be working.

well that's an interesting spin on it...not sure how it could work though. How do you identify who's drawing the fans? What evidence will all the parties agree to? Stats? Merchandising sales? What about the value of the team itself? How do you quantify its "star power" and its "say equal to their value to the business"?

Not many Darrell Powe jerseys out there so he gets the League minimum. The big names all get the platinum cards. Okay fine, we've taken care of about 1/10th of the players. The other 90% will be much harder to value, even after you work out some kind of formula to rate their contribution. I can see things being more contentious under this system not less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well that's an interesting spin on it...not sure how it could work though. How do you identify who's drawing the fans? What evidence will all the parties agree to? Stats? Merchandising sales? What about the value of the team itself? How do you quantify its "star power" and its "say equal to their value to the business"?

Not many Darrell Powe jerseys out there so he gets the League minimum. The big names all get the platinum cards. Okay fine, we've taken care of about 1/10th of the players. The other 90% will be much harder to value, even after you work out some kind of formula to rate their contribution. I can see things being more contentious under this system not less.

In a world where one might reasonably expect Andreas Nodl to outscore Jaromir Jagr.

:ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that share - as determined by the owners' own actions - is 57/43 so be it.

Why should there be ANY artificially imposed breakdown of the revenues?

as a hockey fan, i agree, really. i liked the uncapped league.

What other industry do the owners compete in that allows them - solely through negotiations with an organized collective union - to artificially determine the amount of revenue that will be allocated in individual contracts?

well, anything that franchises, right? except they tend to not have unions. which, maybe there's a clue to the chicken and egg of things. i guess if mcdonalds employees unionized, they would probably work to remove centralized regulation of pay. would it make sense? is it wrong for mcdonalds HQ to decide what their franchises' pay structure looks like?

i dunno. you can see the NHL like mcdonalds and burger king and wendys and arbys, 30 seperate franchises competing with each other for business. in which case the very idea of a board of governors for the league is collusive and not ok. or, you can see the NHL like one big organization, with 30 franchises whose product are the athletic competition between them. in which case, i don't see why they can't act as one big organization and set whatever internal standards they feel are needed to maximize their collective product.

The owners have absolutely no leg to stand on to demand an immediate 50/50 split. None.

what, like right out of the gate? no, they don't. the idea of modifying existing contracts....you can't do that. union or no union, you can't change the terms of a contract after it has been signed without both sides agreeing. and the players as individuals should never agree to that. nor should their union.

if, on the other hand, the league said, "ok, contracts as signed, stand. going forward, though, we're using 50/50 as the baseline, and those existing contracts will be valued 13% lower than today for that calculation (13% being [roughly] the drop from 57% to 50% of HHR). meaning, a $10mil contract will be reduced to only count for $8.7mil in cap and player share calculations," i'd be totally good with that. a fair way to track things while teams work off the existing contracts, but containing things going forward.

Edited by aziz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see things being more contentious under this system not less.

no, no, no system. the quote you gave was me being down on the idea of players needing a union at all. these are the best hockey players in the world, they don't need the protection of collective bargining to demand a system that keeps them safe. financially, anyway.

Edited by aziz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see your point - I guess you're basically saying the players make big buck to play a game, the owners take all the financial risk and the players should be grateful they've got a league that pays them so well. If their salary goes down somewhat so be it, it'll still be way more than what 98% of the world makes.

Except this isn't about what "keeps them safe, financially" it's about their share of the pie. And the other guy's share of the pie. To a large degree it's nothing more than a pissing contest.

I agree pro athletes are valued and therefore compensated much too highly - across all pro sports. I wish teachers and firemen and cops made what they made. But that's a dream. Reality is we love our sports and we're willing to pay. But there are only so many entertainment dollars. If hockey can't work in Phoenix don't ask NY and Philly and Detroit to bail them out, move the damn team.

Kinda reminds me of the old joke about why women are like floor tiles - you lay em right the first time you can walk all over them.

Seems to me the joke's now on the owners - the tile mechanics who fkd up the job a long time ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as a hockey fan, i agree, really. i liked the uncapped league.

well, anything that franchises, right? except they tend to not have unions. which, maybe there's a clue to the chicken and egg of things. i guess if mcdonalds employees unionized, they would probably work to remove centralized regulation of pay. would it make sense? is it wrong for mcdonalds HQ to decide what their franchises' pay structure looks like?

i dunno. you can see the NHL like mcdonalds and burger king and wendys and arbys, 30 seperate franchises competing with each other for business. in which case the very idea of a board of governors for the league is collusive and not ok. or, you can see the NHL like one big organization, with 30 franchises whose product are the athletic competition between them. in which case, i don't see why they can't act as one big organization and set whatever internal standards they feel are needed to maximize their collective product.

what, like right out of the gate? no, they don't. the idea of modifying existing contracts....you can't do that. union or no union, you can't change the terms of a contract after it has been signed without both sides agreeing. and the players as individuals should never agree to that. nor should their union.

if, on the other hand, the league said, "ok, contracts as signed, stand. going forward, though, we're using 50/50 as the baseline, and those existing contracts will be valued 13% lower than today for that calculation (13% being [roughly] the drop from 57% to 50% of HHR). meaning, a $10mil contract will be reduced to only count for $8.7mil in cap and player share calculations," i'd be totally good with that. a fair way to track things while teams work off the existing contracts, but containing things going forward.

There is no industry in which the owners are guaranteed a profit. There is no industry in which the owners are guaranteed a specific split of revenue. There is no industry in which owners can mismanage things entirely - as, for example, Columbus - and still be "guaranteed" a profit.

It's amazing how "capitalists" are all about "capitalism" until they want artificial guarantees to prop them up when they make ridiculously stupid decisions.

What you are proposing with the 50/50 but with contracts honored without counting as much towards the cap is, essentially, what we have now.

The owners have rejected the concept of anything but a 50/50 split - this year, hard and fixed.

They decided to pay the players and now want to take back what they offered.

How anyone can see this as any sort of "fair and open" negotiation is beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

who said anything about guaranteed profits? The discussion is about percentage of revenue dedicated to head count. This is something that executive management of every company in the world talks about and plans around every year. Revenue down, freeze hiring; revenue up, fill vacancies. It is an entirely normal topic for an employer to factor in. We aren't talking about revenue after operating expenses are covered; it is entirely possible for travel, hotels, ice time, etc to add up to more than 50% of HHR, and the league to lose money with a 50-50 salary split. No one is asking for guarantees, just the ability to manage expenses as they see fit. Which is, IMO, an employer's right. Just as it is an employee's right to not like how those expenses are managed and look for work elsewhere.

And what is "artificial"? It is "artificial" for an organization to set internal salary guidelines? I mean, again, welcome to every employer ever. The only thing that makes this different than, say, Wells Fargo, is Wells Fargo employees don't have a union to object to the internal salary guidelines. And they tend to not make a couple million dollars per year, but whatever.

Again, modifying existing contacts is and should be a nonstarter, and if that were the extent of the players' objection, I'd be on the players' side. It isn't, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the ownerrs can't stand the heat of owninbg an NHL team, maybe they should sell it and buy a McDonald's franchise. Or maybe the AHL. There are other hockey leagues they could buy a team in.

The owners are asking for a GUARANTEE of how revenues in the league break down. They are asking that the deals they signed be changed in their favor because they made a stupid decision in signing it in the first place.

That is their position.

You can get all outraged that the players accepted the offers the owners made to them, but I think that's a nonstarter.

The owners created this situation and now they are crying that someone else MUST fix it for them, because they are incapable of fixing it themselves. They are incapable of NOT offering huge sums of money to players. They are incapable of running their teams in a fiscally responsible manner. They are incapable of living up to the commitments they made.

Forgive me if i have zero sympathy for "businessmen" running their "business" in such a manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry this is from 4 pages back, but that's a lot of reading to do!!

@JackStraw

"Stop me, before I spend again!" Right? Do you really think that stopping the Pens from paying Crosby $9 million a year (and other similar contracts) is gong to save hockey in Phoenix or Columbus? Doesn't the question of whether or not those struggling franchises should even be where they are come into play? The league should be able to blithely go ahead and put franchises wherever it pleases, and then expect the players to pay for their bad decisions?

Absolutely yes to your last question. Isn't that what being in business and being an owner means? You are responsible for leading the business forward. Some are better at that than others. Many many many of them fail. And employees lose their jobs. Seriously, none of this is new.

I worked for a company before and made great money. I loved my job. And at one point, I had enough experience and standing that I was privvy to certain deals the boss was seeking and what direction he was headed. I completely disagreed, and thought it took us away from our core competencies. I had a chat with the CFO, he agreed. We had a chat with the CEO, he disagreed. At the end of the day it was HIS business. He made a series of bad decisions after that WHICH WE TOLD HIM WERE BAD, and the company went bankrupt. I lost my job. So did everyone else.

Was it my fault???? Absolutely not!!! Was it my boss' fault? Yep. Who paid for it? I did, and so did everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as a hockey fan, i agree, really. i liked the uncapped league.

well, anything that franchises, right? except they tend to not have unions. which, maybe there's a clue to the chicken and egg of things. i guess if mcdonalds employees unionized, they would probably work to remove centralized regulation of pay. would it make sense? is it wrong for mcdonalds HQ to decide what their franchises' pay structure looks like?

i dunno. you can see the NHL like mcdonalds and burger king and wendys and arbys, 30 seperate franchises competing with each other for business. in which case the very idea of a board of governors for the league is collusive and not ok. or, you can see the NHL like one big organization, with 30 franchises whose product are the athletic competition between them. in which case, i don't see why they can't act as one big organization and set whatever internal standards they feel are needed to maximize their collective product.

what, like right out of the gate? no, they don't. the idea of modifying existing contracts....you can't do that. union or no union, you can't change the terms of a contract after it has been signed without both sides agreeing. and the players as individuals should never agree to that. nor should their union.

if, on the other hand, the league said, "ok, contracts as signed, stand. going forward, though, we're using 50/50 as the baseline, and those existing contracts will be valued 13% lower than today for that calculation (13% being [roughly] the drop from 57% to 50% of HHR). meaning, a $10mil contract will be reduced to only count for $8.7mil in cap and player share calculations," i'd be totally good with that. a fair way to track things while teams work off the existing contracts, but containing things going forward.

But why is 50/50 fair? It's just as arbitrary as saying 58.3/41.7. The reason 50/50 seems fair is because it's an EVEN split, but why does EVEN represent fair in this case? Maybe in reality, 50% for the players is 20% too much. Or maybe it's 20% too much for the owners. There is a crapload of analysis that goes into how important each party is to revenue generation, and how much risk a party is taking, and how big a cut each thinks it deserves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that pro sports franchises have a unique business model that isn't governed by the same set of constraints and expectations as other businesses.

I think maybe the closest thing to a pro sports franchise is a movie studio. Back in the glory days of Hollywood the studios were "factories" and even the biggest stars were expendable. There was no bargaining for better terms even by the likes of Gable and Garbo. Years passed, things changed and now the studios resemble sports franchises in at least one important way: they all have a combination of regular employees - hourly, salary, whatever - and also "stars" who have unique contracts.

How my little analogy helps the discussion...I have no idea. Just thought I'd throw that in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the ownerrs can't stand the heat of owninbg an NHL team, maybe they should sell it and buy a McDonald's franchise. Or maybe the AHL. There are other hockey leagues they could buy a team in.

I completely agree. By the same token, if a player is not happy with an average salary of $2.4M and the conditions of his labour, he's free to go toil in Switzerland for francs or Russia for rubles. That's what a free market is all about.

The difference is that being an owner affords you the luxury of calling the shots, for better or worse.

The only thing a player can do is argue really really really strongly that it's unfair, and call their bosses idiots in the national media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a crapload of analysis that goes into how important each party is to revenue generation, and how much risk a party is taking, and how big a cut each thinks it deserves.

and there it is: the root of the problem. Your solution to the lockout - and the future health of the NHL - depends on what analysis you subscribe to. And that's why I think an independent arbitrator is the only way this gets solved. The 2 parties at the table now have too many preconceived ideas about their value, their self-worth. The players must think they're indispensable to the game and they are. But the owners have an equally valid claim - there'd be no NHL franchises without them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The players must think they're indispensable to the game and they are.

Some players are indispensable to the game as it is now. There are a ton of marginal players that really have no bearing on how good the league is. That's why a 15 team league would be a much better product - you would actually have the best players, and few if any scrubs.

But you're right, each side has sort of preconceived notions of how they should be rewarded and how much they're worth.

It might sound trivial, but apparently this was brought up as a real issue, so it's legitimate. Should owners pay for accommodations when the players are on the road? Probably, most businesses do. Should they pay for 4-star accommodations? Hmm, not necessarily. It's all fine and dandy, but it's not necessary. It's become an entitlement for NHL players. Ask Ray Emery what it was like in Russia. Somewhere in between is probably fair, and players can pay the premium if they want to stay at the fancy place with $15 orange juice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@radoran

Forgive me if i have zero sympathy for "businessmen" running their "business" in such a manner.

And forgive me if I have zero sympathy for employees who average over two million dollars per year but demand their employers maintain an obviously unsustainable business model. I said it before: I'm sure there is greed involved from some of the owners, but a fair number are talking about the ability to continue operations long term. While it feels great to say, hey, stupid league and stupid owners, you made your bed by expanding into dumb areas and paying players too much, now sleep in it, but... Who loses when teams start to fold?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree. By the same token, if a player is not happy with an average salary of $2.4M and the conditions of his labour, he's free to go toil in Switzerland for francs or Russia for rubles. That's what a free market is all about.

The difference is that being an owner affords you the luxury of calling the shots, for better or worse.

The only thing a player can do is argue really really really strongly that it's unfair, and call their bosses idiots in the national media.

Yes, players can - and have and will - go elsewhere.

The players aren't the ones "demanding" things in this situation. The owners are.

The players didn't create the league's salary structure. The owners did.

The players aren't looking to abrogate contracts. The owners are.

The owners can go elsewhere, too. If they can't make a go of running an NHL franchise, perhaps they can buy a Stuckey's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...