Rant

[flyerrod]

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....

After the players movement on the last offer and ZERO movement from Bettman, you will see the De-certification talks end I think. The last proposal was put through at the moderate players request. After they made a meaningful offer and received nothing but that's nice but not enough from Bettman, you will see those moderates joining the hard liners. Bettman's last move all but guarantees no hockey this year or even the next for that matter.

[flyerrod]

I did not realize they would actually use the De-certification as a negotiating tool. If you do De-certify, It takes a minimum of 1 year before you can even begin to certify a "new" union. If they do that they might win the battle but ultimately it will lose the war. The Owners will IMMEDIATELY find new and creative ways to dump contracts and restructure their teams destroying the current pay scale. The below article breaks down(granted it is for the NBA) the process.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabriel-a-feldman/the-legal-issues-behind-t_2_b_1081107.html

[brelic]

I did not realize they would actually use the De-certification as a negotiating tool. If you do De-certify, It takes a minimum of 1 year before you can even begin to certify a "new" union. If they do that they might win the battle but ultimately it will lose the war. The Owners will IMMEDIATELY find new and creative ways to dump contracts and restructure their teams destroying the current pay scale. The below article breaks down(granted it is for the NBA) the process.

http://www.huffingto..._b_1081107.html

If I were the owners, I would call their bluff. Fans will not side with the players on this one, and as you say, the owners will find creative ways to dump contracts. In the end, I don't doubt that Fehr would go through with it.. but would he get the votes needed to decertify? NHL is already a weak sport in the US, and this certainly won't help the image. The longer it takes, and the more they threaten moves like this, the smaller the pie keeps getting.

[radoran]

If I were the owners, I would call their bluff. Fans will not side with the players on this one, and as you say, the owners will find creative ways to dump contracts. In the end, I don't doubt that Fehr would go through with it.. but would he get the votes needed to decertify? NHL is already a weak sport in the US, and this certainly won't help the image. The longer it takes, and the more they threaten moves like this, the smaller the pie keeps getting.

How can the owners "creatively" dump contracts?

They have signed deals. The owners' only method to get out of them is through the CBA process. Otherwise those dealsneed to be honored in full.

Likewise, there is no salary cap without a CBA.

Might be good news for big spending teams, but the league as a whole will revert to pre-2004 lockout conditions.

[canoli]

what the hell does de-certifying accomplish? (btw thanks Rod for the link, good article, explains a lot)

So the players will go through the court system instead of collective bargaining, where they will try to wrangle themselves better terms, more money, etc.? Each player...individually? They're going to sue the owners. Okay.

I don't see how the NHL could survive after such a process; the bad blood that already exists would turn into a river of hate and distrust, thereby ending the relationships between owners and players. Neither side would have any reason to trust the other.

I guess this decertification talk is just another negotiating weapon but it sure is ugly. Six months ago I never dreamed we'd be nearing December without a new CBA in place. Unbelievable how both sides could screw up a good thing.

[flyerrod]

If I were the owners, I would call their bluff. Fans will not side with the players on this one, and as you say, the owners will find creative ways to dump contracts. In the end, I don't doubt that Fehr would go through with it.. but would he get the votes needed to decertify? NHL is already a weak sport in the US, and this certainly won't help the image. The longer it takes, and the more they threaten moves like this, the smaller the pie keeps getting.

I really believe it is a ploy to pry the remaining difference out of the owners. It will cost them way more than the 182 million over the next 5 years in court costs to fight it. Whatever they chose to do, the players will be united. I have to give credit to Bettman if this is his end game(breaking the union). He could possibly get it if the Owners stay in Bettman's corner.

[radoran]

I guess this decertification talk is just another negotiating weapon but it sure is ugly. Six months ago I never dreamed we'd be nearing December without a new CBA in place. Unbelievable how both sides could screw up a good thing.

I'll bite. How are the players at fault for not accepting the only deal they've been offered from the people who would rather lock them out than allow them to play hockey?

There is no magical "50/50 split and honor existing contracts" proposal on the table Because it fundamentally doesn't work.

What deal is it that the players have been offered and not accepted that you feel they should have?

[brelic]

How can the owners "creatively" dump contracts?

They have signed deals. The owners' only method to get out of them is through the CBA process. Otherwise those dealsneed to be honored in full.

Likewise, there is no salary cap without a CBA.

Might be good news for big spending teams, but the league as a whole will revert to pre-2004 lockout conditions.

Don't know, I was just going by what Rod said. But yeah, now that I think about it, I guess decertification means that the players use the court system to enforce binding contracts and can accuse the owners of antitrust on matters of 'price collusion'.

[Podein25]

...can accuse the owners of antitrust on matters of 'price collusion'.

Clearly the owners are guilty. How else to explain Jody Shelley's contract if not some sort of conspiracy? It makes no sense otherwise.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Podein25

[radoran]

Don't know, I was just going by what Rod said. But yeah, now that I think about it, I guess decertification means that the players use the court system to enforce binding contracts and can accuse the owners of antitrust on matters of 'price collusion'.

Well, exactly. For all the kvetching that Some do about the union it is, in fact, the union which is the only mechanism that allows the owners to attempt to fix salary levels, revenue splits and abrogate/reduce existing contracts

[canoli]

I'll bite. How are the players at fault for not accepting the only deal they've been offered from the people who would rather lock them out than allow them to play hockey?

There is no magical "50/50 split and honor existing contracts" proposal on the table Because it fundamentally doesn't work.

What deal is it that the players have been offered and not accepted that you feel they should have?

All I said was "both sides found a way to screw up a good thing." You think the players have zero responsibility for the situation the league is in?

I don't say "players, accept whatever the owners offer" but I do say maybe it's time to realize they have a helluva great life and maybe...just maybe it's time to show some gratitude for it by accepting a slightly smaller paycheck.

In the end we're basically talking about player salaries going down a bit right? Correct me if I'm wrong but that's basically what all this is about isn't it? Certain team owners crying "poor me" and the NHLPA saying "too bad A-hole, you made your bed now lie in it."

As a matter of principle the players probably have the moral high ground, but in practice their league is dissolving around them while they cling to their rights.

[radoran]

All I said was "both sides found a way to screw up a good thing." You think the players have zero responsibility for the situation the league is in?

I don't say "players, accept whatever the owners offer" but I do say maybe it's time to realize they have a helluva great life and maybe...just maybe it's time to show some gratitude for it by accepting a slightly smaller paycheck.

In the end we're basically talking about player salaries going down a bit right? Correct me if I'm wrong but that's basically what all this is about isn't it? Certain team owners crying "poor me" and the NHLPA saying "too bad A-hole, you made your bed now lie in it."

As a matter of principle the players probably have the moral high ground, but in practice their league is dissolving around them while they cling to their rights.

Players gave back a rollback on the last CBA and gave up a salary cap because the owners insisted they coulnd't possibly live without it.

Players refused a demand for a 20% off the top rollback this time.

Owners insist on someone else fixing the mess they created. And, yes, I do believe that this is at least 85% if not more the owners' creation.

Shea Weber didn't force Ed Snider to offer him that contract.

Zach Parise and Ryan Suter didn't force Minnesota to offer them those contracts.

Ilya Brzygalov didn't force Ed Snidere to offer him that contract.

And those are two owners identified as "hard liners" in these "negotiations."

The players aren't demanding unilateral changes to existing contracts they signed in good faith with ownerrs who offered them the contracts. The players are asking that the men who signed their contracts live up to the terms and conditions that they set when they offered the contracts.

Players could certainly play for less. They already have.

What did that change? Nothing. The owners kept up the same shenanigans that they insisted the last CBA would prevent.

Yes, the players could take less. And the owners could be in any way fiscally responsible or do a much better job of managing their teams.

Unfortunaately, all anyone seems to say is that the players can "Take less."

Did Hartnell take less on his extension he signed? Yes. And the first thing he was asked to do is take a 20% cut off the top.

No, wait, not asked. DEMANDED. By the SAME PERSON who had just sat on the other side of the table, offered the contract and signed it.

There's only so many times someone will drop their drawers, assume the position and keep screaming "Thank you, sir, may I have another?"

The players could "take less" (and Hartnell is an idiot - like Simmonds - for signing that contract when he did) but the owners are petulant children.

[flyerrod]

You think the players have zero responsibility for the situation the league is in?

I don't say "players, accept whatever the owners offer" but I do say maybe it's time to realize they have a helluva great life and maybe...just maybe it's time to show some gratitude for it by accepting a slightly smaller paycheck.

Correct me if I am wrong but did the players not just put an offer on the table that goes around 1 BILLION in concessions to the Owners favor? That means the Owners need to move around 180 million or 1/5th of what the players have? Divide that by 30 teams and then again by say 5 years of the agreement...That comes out to a WHOPPING 1.2 Mil per season per team and Owners would rather maintain the lockout than play? Pardon my english but which side is being an A$$HOLE?

EDIT>>>> the Players want want that 182 mil over the first 4 years......so make that a whopping 1.5 mil per team per season....

[canoli]

I hear ya - Rod, Rad - all I know is that if it's true, that 18 NHL teams are in the red, and there's no end in sight to their money-losing proposition, then almost certainly their labor costs are too high. Regardless of what they agreed to in '04.

Of course if it's not true, if 18 NHL teams are not losing money... that it's all been a charade made possible by 'creative' accounting practices....well that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.

[radoran]

I hear ya - Rod, Rad - all I know is that if it's true, that 18 NHL teams are in the red, and there's no end in sight to their money-losing proposition, then almost certainly their labor costs are too high. Regardless of what they agreed to in '04.

Of course if it's not true, if 18 NHL teams are not losing money... that it's all been a charade made possible by 'creative' accounting practices....well that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.

Minnesota is one of the "losing" franchises.

The Wild have a $68.8M payroll and over the next three yeas will pay out $25M in bonus money to Zach Parise and another $25M in bonus money to Ryan Suter.

Hard to believe Minnesota is "losing money" with that sort of extravagant spending.

Who forced this "cash strapped" team to pay $50M in bonuses over the next three years?

Craig Leipold.

Who bemoaned the expansion of player salaries, decried long term cap-busting deals and claimed such things were bad for the game?

Criaig Leipold.

Spare me the "losing money" rhetoric.

[brelic]

Owners insist on someone else fixing the mess they created. And, yes, I do believe that this is at least 85% if not more the owners' creation.

Shea Weber didn't force Ed Snider to offer him that contract.

Zach Parise and Ryan Suter didn't force Minnesota to offer them those contracts.

Ilya Brzygalov didn't force Ed Snidere to offer him that contract.

And those are two owners identified as "hard liners" in these "negotiations."

Out of curiosity, how should the owners act instead? I accept that the owners gave them those contracts, and no one person forced them to dole them out. But this is classic psychology at work. There is a limited amount of top-tier talent, and owners battle against each other to get that talent, leading them into a tricky game of one-upmanship.

This wouldn't be a problem if the business model didn't dictate that rich teams need to transfer wealth to the poor teams. Most businesses try to poach the best employees from other companies in their industry. But when the company in question is profitable, there's no problem.

I'm just not sure how it could function in any other way than it is right now under the current economic model of 30 owners.

If you really want to shake things up, make it so that there are no limits to contract length, but that the player can't be traded for the duration of the contract. I honestly don't know if that would results in shorter contracts (which it should!) or if owners would just keep shooting themselves in the foot.

[brelic]

I hear ya - Rod, Rad - all I know is that if it's true, that 18 NHL teams are in the red, and there's no end in sight to their money-losing proposition, then almost certainly their labor costs are too high. Regardless of what they agreed to in '04.

Of course if it's not true, if 18 NHL teams are not losing money... that it's all been a charade made possible by 'creative' accounting practices....well that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.

It took TWO years after the 2004 lockout for the average team payroll to match the pre-lockout average team payroll. So, yes the players sacrificed 20% rollback, but within two seasons, were right back at how it was before, then had revenues grow at a 7.1% clip per year. On top of that, the standard deviation between average team payroll was cut in half after the lockout, which means that the spread between team payrolls was much narrower, giving players a better chance of scoring equal contracts in more markets than before the lockout.

So, yes, labour costs are too high because they're higher than they were pre-lockout, and they are tied to a percentage of total revenue. Apparently, that level is too high because half the league is unprofitable.

[radoran]

If you are running a business, you determine how much you can spend on expenses and how much revenue you take in and base your expenses accordingly.

Craig Leipold just committed - as a "losing money" owner - to $196M in salaries including $50M in bonuses to be paid over the next three years.

Ed Snider just forced another "losing money" franchise to agree to a contract to pay $26M in bonuses in one calendar year.

How about they don't "act" like that?

For starters.

To be clear, I'm in favor of reforming the contract system to avoid these ridiculous shenanigans that the OWNERS created and magnified and then blamed the players for accepting.

[brelic]

If you are running a business, you determine how much you can spend on expenses and how much revenue you take in and base your expenses accordingly.

Craig Leipold just committed - as a "losing money" owner - to $196M in salaries including $50M in bonuses to be paid over the next three years.

Ed Snider just forced another "losing money" franchise to agree to a contract to pay $26M in bonuses in one calendar year.

How about they don't "act" like that?

For starters.

To be clear, I'm in favor of reforming the contract system to avoid these ridiculous shenanigans that the OWNERS created and magnified and then blamed the players for accepting.

But you're asking people not to 'act' in a way that they're almost forced to act in order to attract the best talent to their team and win championships. I know that top talent and payroll != championships, but owners competing for the services of these players drives up salaries exponentially.

And you're asking the Flyers to seriously back off from trying to land the best defenseman in hockey using a rule that exists under the CBA agreed to by the players??? It might be a '****' move, but it's in the CBA, and business isn't about being nicey nicey.

I'm still not convinced that there's any other (read: sane) way for 30 DIFFERENT owners to act in such an economic model.

[flyerrod]

Ok..Hear is another example of "losing" Money.....

Panthers Franchise cost 50 million in 1992....today by Forbes numbers they are worth 162 million....Over TRIPLE what they cost....What am I missing?

http://a.espncdn.com/nhl/s/expansion4a.html

[flyerrod]

But you're asking people not to 'act' in a way that they're almost forced to act in order to attract the best talent to their team and win championships. I know that top talent and payroll != championships, but owners competing for the services of these players drives up salaries exponentially.

And you're asking the Flyers to seriously back off from trying to land the best defenseman in hockey using a rule that exists under the CBA agreed to by the players??? It might be a '****' move, but it's in the CBA, and business isn't about being nicey nicey.

I'm still not convinced that there's any other (read: sane) way for 30 DIFFERENT owners to act in such an economic model.

So I guess we should double the guys salary who came up with the BRILLIANT plan for the last CBA....Oh wait.....

[brelic]

Ok..Hear is another example of "losing" Money.....

Panthers Franchise cost 50 million in 1992....today by Forbes numbers they are worth 162 million....Over TRIPLE what they cost....What am I missing?

http://a.espncdn.com...xpansion4a.html

I'm sure your house is worth more today than when you bought it, but you can still be losing money every year if you need to spend more than you earn (mortgage, car loan, student loan, food, utilities, kids, yard maintenance, car maintenance, etc).

So you can only realize that 'profit' when you sell your house (or franchise), but you can still be bleeding money every year until you do.

And for the average person, that means you are spending more than you earn... i.e. you can't afford your lifestyle. It's become the same with teams. They can't afford to compete against richer owners.

[flyerrod]

I'm sure your house is worth more today than when you bought it

Not so anymore......yet I still have to pay the mortgage even though it is not worth what it once was. I wish I could just tell the banks that I am nullifying their contract because I am losing money.........

[brelic]

Not so anymore......yet I still have to pay the mortgage even though it is not worth what it once was. I wish I could just tell the banks that I am nullifying their contract because I am losing money.........

Ok, housing bubble aside, that's 'normally' how things go

Your assets can appreciate in value over time, even if your operations are losing money.

[flyerrod]

Correct me if I am wrong but did the players not just put an offer on the table that goes around 1 BILLION in concessions to the Owners favor? That means the Owners need to move around 180 million or 1/5th of what the players have? Divide that by 30 teams and then again by say 5 years of the agreement...That comes out to a WHOPPING 1.2 Mil per season per team and Owners would rather maintain the lockout than play? Pardon my english but which side is being an A$$HOLE?

EDIT>>>> the Players want want that 182 mil over the first 4 years......so make that a whopping 1.5 mil per team per season....

Figuring the difference between the offer from the owners of 211 million and players proposal of 393 million....