Rant

[canoli]

why don't they just junk this whole system and quit trying to pretend "we're all in this together"? Obviously there's no real solidarity between any of the parties so why bother? Owners have to decide once and for all that they will the shots and anyone that doesn't like it can go find another league to play in.

They own the damn team. What is so hard to figure out? Why is there HRR anyway? The players work for X-team, they should get a salary. And all their travel accommodations are taken care of.

I'm no fan of the owners in this mess but it looks like we need a complete restructuring of values here. The players bring in the fans and that's why there's any revenue at all - okay, granted. But you kind of have to say, "so what?" That means they're entitled to something beyond a salary?

Yes I've turned 180 - maybe I'll switch back tomorrow. But right now I am so sick of millionaire players complaining they're about to "get screwed" (in so many words) because god forbid they have to average $2mil a year instead of $2.4. Fk em. Fk em all.

[JackStraw]

LOL....especially when they catch him popping out his dentures to get that pesky kernel..........

Exactly! I mean, who wouldn't pay cash money to see that?

[JackStraw]

Yes I've turned 180 - maybe I'll switch back tomorrow. But right now I am so sick of millionaire players complaining they're about to "get screwed" (in so many words) because god forbid they have to average $2mil a year instead of $2.4. Fk em. Fk em all.

But you're ok with billionaire owners, like say, Comcast, crying poverty (in so many words)?

[flyerrod]

@canoli

Just so I have this straight, the players make around 1 BILLION dollars worth of concessions and the Owners can't move the 180 million difference? The players are the ONLY ones attempting to make progress and that has become their fault? I guess I will just wait until tomorrow and see what you think...

[Lindbergh31]

I come back again to asking "Why is 50/50 fair?". Are we saying that the players are worth exactly 50% to the NHL, and that owners are worth exactly the same proportion? Based on what? That's exactly what they're trying to figure out.

Well I think it has to do with the fact that without the owners putting up the money for the franchises and in some cases keep putting money into teams that continue to lose money each year that they should get 50% of the revenue. Without the owners, the players wouldn't have a place to play. Take away the 30 owners and where do all 700 players play? Yes, I know the fans come to watch the players no the owners but you need both in order to have a league, not to mention the players keep saying they want a partnership with the owners [then most partnerships are 50/50]. Personally I'm not on either side because they're both greedy pricks that are ruining the game.

[canoli]

hehe...rod. Jack.

No I'm not at all "okay" with billionaire egomaniacs trying to chisel their way out of contracts, or refusing to budge 200mil on a 3-billion dollar deal. But in the end I'm starting to think this whole concept of "share and share alike" is b.s., it can't work. One side is always unhappy and these stupid CBAs only last 5 years, so stay tuned for the next dumb lockout.

No, I think the only way to solve this once and for all is to admit that the owners really are in charge. To attempt dividing up the pie and guaranteeing players certain percentages of the overall revenue is ludicrous.

Offer them outstanding salaries, first-class accommodations on the road, short and long-term medical care etc. and that's it. They are employees after all, not part-owners. Why isn't that okay with everyone? I'll tell you why. Because over the years the players got spoiled, to the point where now they actually expect to share in the revenue that the entire league generates. The more I think about that the more preposterous it is.

[edit: I mean seriously, how do the players lose by adopting the standard employer/employee business model for NHL franchises? They only "lose" when you compare it to their extravagant deals that have been the norm. But actually lose? I don't see how.]

Edited November 22, 2012 by canoli

[flyerrod]

hehe...rod. Jack.

No I'm not at all "okay" with billionaire egomaniacs trying to chisel their way out of contracts, or refusing to budge 200mil on a 3-billion dollar deal. But in the end I'm starting to think this whole concept of "share and share alike" is b.s., it can't work. One side is always unhappy and these stupid CBAs only last 5 years, so stay tuned for the next dumb lockout.

No, I think the only way to solve this once and for all is to admit that the owners really are in charge. To attempt dividing up the pie and guaranteeing players certain percentages of the overall revenue is ludicrous.

Offer them outstanding salaries, first-class accommodations on the road, short and long-term medical care etc. and that's it. They are employees after all, not part-owners. Why isn't that okay with everyone? I'll tell you why. Because over the years the players got spoiled, to the point where now they actually expect to share in the revenue that the entire league generates. The more I think about that the more preposterous it is.

The whole reason behind revenue sharing is to keep player salaries down. Fine, let the owners keep all of the revenue but now they are going to have to pay up front for players so you say good bye to salary cap. How exactly will that help any of the "poor" teams?

[JackStraw]

hehe...rod. Jack.

No I'm not at all "okay" with billionaire egomaniacs trying to chisel their way out of contracts, or refusing to budge 200mil on a 3-billion dollar deal. But in the end I'm starting to think this whole concept of "share and share alike" is b.s., it can't work. One side is always unhappy and these stupid CBAs only last 5 years, so stay tuned for the next dumb lockout.

No, I think the only way to solve this once and for all is to admit that the owners really are in charge. To attempt dividing up the pie and guaranteeing players certain percentages of the overall revenue is ludicrous.

Offer them outstanding salaries, first-class accommodations on the road, short and long-term medical care etc. and that's it. They are employees after all, not part-owners. Why isn't that okay with everyone? I'll tell you why. Because over the years the players got spoiled, to the point where now they actually expect to share in the revenue that the entire league generates. The more I think about that the more preposterous it is.

[edit: I mean seriously, how do the players lose by adopting the standard employer/employee business model for NHL franchises? They only "lose" when you compare it to their extravagant deals that have been the norm. But actually lose? I don't see how.]

What flyerrod said. The major effect of giving the players their percentage of revenue is to set the salary cap. Get rid of that and watch the Leafs, Rangers, Flyers, etc... start spending like drunken sailors again. And say goodbye to Phoenix, Nashville, Columbus, etc...

Edited November 22, 2012 by JackStraw

[canoli]

well part of the "for-profit business model" is that a business has to have customers, enough of them to justify the business' existence. If certain teams don't turn a profit then the owner has 2 choices: accept it and close the doors or redefine the expectations. Maybe "for-profit" isn't the only motivation and he's okay with losing money on his NHL franchise - because presumably he makes it up somewhere else. I don't know. But that's up to each owner of a "poor" team, right?

[canoli]

and you can still have a salary cap. That pushes the line toward a "collective" but the NHL could function that way when necessary. The owners would need to abide by certain restrictions if they want to compete in the NHL. I don't see any conflict with having a cap. It doesn't necessarily need to be tied to overall revenue does it? Why?

[brelic]

People spend a lot of money to see Jeremy Jacobs in the owners' box.

I hear they're going to start televising owners sitting on their posteriors on NBCSports. Smell the ratings!

Heh, I love watching Clarkie in the box.

And you know what I'm trying to get at How do you define how much each party is worth (or contributes) to overall revenue? And how is risk rewarded? And on and on and on... and that's why we're here.

[aziz]

Just so I have this straight, the players make around 1 BILLION dollars worth of concessions and the Owners can't move the 180 million difference? The players are the ONLY ones attempting to make progress and that has become their fault?

i don't think that's what he is getting at. if i can take a stab...in most situations, the bosses/owners do what they like. they are the dictators, they *own* the freaking place, right? the employees are what allows the employer to function, whether by making things go or by being the product itself. they are vital to the operation...but the owner is, well, the owner. recognizing that he doesn't have a business without employees, he treats them as well as he has to to keep them around. if he doesn't treat them well enough, as regards pay or benefits or working conditions or whatever, they leave and make someone else's operation go. if he makes a unilateral business decision that effects his employees negatively, which is his right, he runs a risk of losing people...but he is allowed to do it, anyway. he is the dictator, he owns the place. he put the money up initially, he takes the ongoing risk of losing money on the venture, he is responsible for the overall existance of the organization...and he gets to do what he wants to do to. for the business's good or ill. the employees' only input is their decision to continue working for the guy or not. and that is enough. in most situations.

introduce unions to the mix and that changes. now, the guy who owns the place is no longer dictator of his property, he is like a constitutional monarch. theoretically, he runs things, but parliament can override and force policy on their own. problem is, the analogy holds up pretty well, because the parliament is not primarily concerned with the state of the nation/organization, but with their own well being. the king can rot, and the country can crumble, so long as the legislators are taken care of while it is happening.

this whole thing would have been a non-issue with no union. the league would have put whatever policy they wanted in place. contracts would have been honored as signed, because with no central representative to talk to, the league would have had to approach each individual player and asked if they could please modify the contract...which would have been denied, problem solved. or, maybe with no union, there would be no guarateed contracts, so the players would have just had to accept the change. and if they didn't like it, quit and sign a new non-guaranteed contract with another club. or another league. just like most of the rest of us who work in at-will states and can have our pay changed at a whim, and can be fired tomorrow for pretty much any reason at all. AND can quit with no notice. its a rough thing, but that's what most people live with. are we really to-tears concerned that multi-millionaires be exposed to the same realities?

i'm all twisted on this, now. radoran corrected me, the players did offer 50-50 starting immediately, with existing contracts accounted for differently to make things fit. which makes the most sense to me. on a "fair" level, that was the best that could be come up with, and the owners should have accepted it. the idea of a union for anyone not working in a mid-19th century steel mill, though, rubs me all kinds of wrong. if the owner of a business wants to be stupid, he should be allowed to be stupid. if he wants to be offensive to his employees, he should be allowed to be offensive to his employees. the employees get to say, "no, screw you," and find somewhere else to work. ultimately, a balance is struck. 88% of the US workforce lives every day under this dynamic. again, are we really so worried about the well being of these guys above and beyond what the vast majority of us live with?

no union = this thing worked out quickly in a boardroom over the summer and no pause to hockey. this thing isn't the union's fault, except insofar as it exists and thus the failed negotiation was required. and, yes, the owners only "negotiated" in the broadest sense of the word, but you see my point.

before anyone educates me, i know this is all pie in the sky, pointless raving about things that not only can i not change, but can't be changed. NHL players have a union, and that will likely always be the case. there is a lockout, and none of this post sheds any kind of light or insight on that. the thread is called "rant", though, so i'm allowed.

[canoli]

and that's why I say "simplify" and get back to basics. The owners are the employers and the players are employees. The NHL is a collective that functions as a governing body for the teams and imposes certain restrictions for membership - such as a salary cap. If you want to hog all the good players and can offer them $20 million a year, great, but you'll have to set up your own league to do it.

[canoli]

Thanks aziz, you fleshed out my thoughts perfectly. And of course you illustrated a major point I forgot about entirely, a humongous obstacle in this mess...the damn UNION. Of course that's why none of this "get back to basics" approach I'm advocating can work. The union fks everything up. You were right when you started this thread - unions were great, necessary...a long time ago. And in a few cases (retail) they may still have a serviceable function. But in an era where neither party can claim "Abuse!" a player's union is an anachronism.

[flyerrod]

I forgot about entirely, a humongous obstacle in this mess...the damn UNION. Of course that's why none of this "get back to basics" approach I'm advocating can work. The union fks everything up.

Contrary to popular beliefs, the Unions are not the devil. You take away Unions and your job is tied to managements whim. You tick them off, you get let go. Doesn't matter that you were right and they were wrong, you did not kiss their ass enough so you are the first guy out the door. One of the biggest problems with unions is they protect the abusers of the system too. That is something you need to change from within the Union itself and it is not easy to do but it is the only way Unions will lose their stigma.

[JackStraw]

i don't think that's what he is getting at. if i can take a stab...in most situations, the bosses/owners do what they like. they are the dictators, they *own* the freaking place, right? the employees are what allows the employer to function, whether by making things go or by being the product itself. they are vital to the operation...but the owner is, well, the owner. recognizing that he doesn't have a business without employees, he treats them as well as he has to to keep them around. if he doesn't treat them well enough, as regards pay or benefits or working conditions or whatever, they leave and make someone else's operation go. if he makes a unilateral business decision that effects his employees negatively, which is his right, he runs a risk of losing people...but he is allowed to do it, anyway. he is the dictator, he owns the place. he put the money up initially, he takes the ongoing risk of losing money on the venture, he is responsible for the overall existance of the organization...and he gets to do what he wants to do to. for the business's good or ill. the employees' only input is their decision to continue working for the guy or not. and that is enough. in most situations.

introduce unions to the mix and that changes. now, the guy who owns the place is no longer dictator of his property, he is like a constitutional monarch. theoretically, he runs things, but parliament can override and force policy on their own. problem is, the analogy holds up pretty well, because the parliament is not primarily concerned with the state of the nation/organization, but with their own well being. the king can rot, and the country can crumble, so long as the legislators are taken care of while it is happening.

I think there's one significant difference from the typical owner/employee relationship here. In this case (and in all pro sports leagues) there are many owners who need to cooperate. In the "real world", GM has no real interest whether Ford succeeds or not. Except that I guess GM would like to see Ford not succeed. In the NHL, it is in the Flyers best interest (if you believe Gary Bettman anyway) that Nashville does not fail. Pro sports simply do not work like the rest of the (semi) free market.

Edited November 22, 2012 by JackStraw

[brelic]

In the NHL, it is in the Flyers best interest (if you believe Gary Bettman anyway) that Nashville does not fail. Pro sports simply do not work like the rest of the (semi) free market.

Other than for Comcast, how is it better for the Flyers if Nashville doesn't fail? If Nashville fails, that's less money the Flyers have to give up to bail out poor franchises, and that's one less team to compete against for the best available players.

[aziz]

You take away Unions and your job is tied to managements whim. You tick them off, you get let go. Doesn't matter that you were right and they were wrong, you did not kiss their ass enough so you are the first guy out the door

believe it or not, 88% of your fellow citizens work under those exact circumstances, and we survive. the options are not union or death. the options are union or death or deal with things like most other people.

[aziz]

In the "real world", GM has no real interest whether Ford succeeds or not. Except that I guess GM would like to see Ford not succeed. In the NHL, it is in the Flyers best interest (if you believe Gary Bettman anyway) that Nashville does not fail. Pro sports simply do not work like the rest of the (semi) free market.

that's true if you see the flyers as GM and nashville as ford. then again, if you see the flyers as Liberty Ford downtown and nashville as McPhereson Ford on the west side, then pro sports work exactly like the rest of the (semi) free market. the only difference is that in the analogy, ford's "product" is competition between the franchises. it is a difference, but i don't think a profound one. i don't see why the same logic wouldn't apply. each Ford franchise has an interest in Ford being successfull overall, which means they have an interest in the franchise collective succeeding.

Edited November 22, 2012 by aziz

[JackStraw]

Other than for Comcast, how is it better for the Flyers if Nashville doesn't fail? If Nashville fails, that's less money the Flyers have to give up to bail out poor franchises, and that's one less team to compete against for the best available players.

Well, remember I said "if you believe Bettman". Expansion wasn't my idea. But I assume that the league's thinking is that if they can grow the sport into non-traditional markets, they get more fans, which leads to more exposure and better TV contracts. And more money for everyone in the long run.

But like I said, it wasn't my idea.

[JackStraw]

that's true if you see the flyers as GM and nashville as ford. then again, if you see the flyers as Liberty Ford downtown and nashville as McPhereson Ford on the west side, then pro sports work exactly like the rest of the (semi) free market. the only difference is that in the analogy, ford's "product" is competition between the franchises. it is a difference, but i don't think a profound one. i don't see why the same logic wouldn't apply. each Ford franchise has an interest in Ford being successfull overall, which means they have an interest in the franchise collective succeeding.

I don't think I disagree with any of that- was I supposed to?

But do think the Ford vs GM aspect plays a significant role in the overall economics. The NHL has no real competition for hockey fans. Sure, they have to compete for our entertainment dollars but the NHL's product is a lot different than the NBA's product or the Philadelphia Orchestra's product. Whereas GM's product is not really all that different from Ford's product.

The NHL is essentially a monopoly. It's kind of like playing Risk against yourself. Eventually one of your sides conquers the world and the rest are obliterated, but at the end of the day they're all your guys so you don't really care all that much. Sort of like that. Maybe.

[Vanflyer]

things entirely - as, for example, Columbus - and still be "guaranteed" a profit.

Not to mention mismanaging AND doubling the valuation of your business. I am 100% in the players court now after doing the analytics I did. Columbus is worth 152M today and they were purchased for 80M- that is despite the horrible management decisions. Show me another business where you can grind your operations to the ground yet double your investment!!!!

[Vanflyer]

and you can still have a salary cap. That pushes the line toward a "collective" but the NHL could function that way when necessary. The owners would need to abide by certain restrictions if they want to compete in the NHL. I don't see any conflict with having a cap. It doesn't necessarily need to be tied to overall revenue does it? Why?

"Small wheel turn by the fire and rod,

Big wheel turn by the grace of god,

Every time that wheel turn round,

Bound to cover just a little more ground."

Nice quote. Too bad I don't have the tribute I gave to @JackStraw anymore.

[brelic]

Now the union apparently has decertification as a legitimate option that is gaining more traction.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=410081

And the sneakiest part of it? They've already started sowing the seeds for political support that may spill into influential chambers by sending a petition to the Legislative Assembly:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409973

This could get even uglier....

[radoran]

Kinda ironic that apparently the only thing which allows the owners to artificially set revenue splits to cover the results of their rampant mismanagement is the union.