I can't believe he got fined over this (NHL Lockout)

[Zeus]

The Detroit Red Wings senior VP aid this about Bettman, which, IMO, doesn't include any derogatory comments or criticism about anything or anyone

http://www.intelligencer.ca/2012/09/21/ ... or-lockout

And for his troubles, the Red Wings got fined $250,000

http://www.standard-freeholder.com/2012 ... ry-bettman

Someone please explain to me how there was any criticism/derogatory comments which goes against the NHL by-laws which led to this fine, I can't find them

[Don]

I remember Rasheed Wallace get fined for just looking at the ref funny. Mark Cuban gets fined for saying just about anything.

[kali o.]

He called the players cattle...on the owners Ranch.

...lol.

Anyway, greedy fuckheads, the lot of em.

[Zeus]

Anyway, greedy fuckheads, the lot of em.

Who?

[kali o.]

Anyway, greedy fuckheads, the lot of em.

Who?

All of em. Don't agree? I feel bad for the concession workers, local business and such. Screw the players and the owners. 4 friggin work stoppages.

[Zeus]

Anyway, greedy fuckheads, the lot of em.

Who?

All of em. Don't agree? I feel bad for the concession workers, local business and such. Screw the players and the owners. 4 friggin work stoppages.

Oh yeah, the worst hit by far are gonna be all the ancilliary industries which are affected by this. It's tremendous how many people are indirectly employed by hockey in this country.

Of course, many economists would argue that there is minimal impact at best to the local economy since people who would have spent that money on hockey-related things will just shift to other things locally; in other words, they don't believe in the impact in trickle-down economics. Of course, they're not taking into account things like the definition of "local" (ie. area vs city vs province vs country), the myriad of possibilities for people to spend their money on which greatly increases the money leaving the "local" economy (ie. travel, online purchases which go to a large multi-national), or even the possibility of people just saving their money, which is even more likely now. There's no doubt that this has a significant impact on the local economy, regardless of how you define it.

As for players vs owners, yeah, it's hard to have sympathy for either, although if forced, I will pick a millionaire to side with vs a billionaire. But there's one thing that I can never understand: WHY should the players take less than what someone is willing to pay them? Are you trying to tell me if someone paid you $3M to do the job you're getting paid $50k for you feel that it's too much and there should be a cap on how much you get paid? Please. No one has ever been able to adequately explain that one without it boiling down to jealousy. I think that the reason people hate the players is because they can identify with them as opposed to the faceless billionaires.

[kali o.]

Well there are a number of reasons caps need to be in place -- namely, balance in payrolls means balance in competitiveness between franchises. That's probably the main reason right there. I don't think the NHLPA has any illusions of a cap going away (in fact, as a union, I think they like it). Salary is tied directly to revenue, which adds a level of certainty for both parties.

[Zeus]

Well there are a number of reasons caps need to be in place -- namely, balance in payrolls means balance in competitiveness between franchises. That's probably the main reason right there. I don't think the NHLPA has any illusions of a cap going away (in fact, as a union, I think they like it). Salary is tied directly to revenue, which adds a level of certainty for both parties.

Exactly. The cap is already there, the "certainty" the owners were so happy to get last time is in place. Now they say there are "fundamental" issues with the current structure that they designed and forced down the players throat 7 years ago. So what do they do? Keep the exact same structure in place while making the pie smaller for the players. How does this address the "fundamental" issues when there no "fundamental" change to the way things are done?

NHLPA has never, ever said the cap needs to go away. Because of that, how can you really fault them this time? That was the lightning rod issue before where the public is like "you get paid too much, you should have a cap like the other leagues". Now that it's there and the owners clearly "won" last time, you're seeing way more people saying "um, owners, how much more do you want after everything you got last time"?

It really is much more skewed towards greedy owners this time regardless of how you try and spin it....unless, of course, you let your jealousy of the players you know and identify with (other than a handful of owners, how many can you even name?) override everything else that's actually going on

[kali o.]

No, I don't "fault" them. But both parties are arguing over additional millions. I don't sympathize with either and think they are all greedy assholes.

[Zeus]

No, I don't "fault" them. But both parties are arguing over additional millions. I don't sympathize with either and think they are all greedy assholes.

So what do you think the solution is if you fault both sides?

[kali o.]

So what do you think the solution is if you fault both sides?

Immediate compromise. Even if it's a one year deal. The union needs to bend more than the owners. Europe is just a short flight away.

[Zeus]

So what do you think the solution is if you fault both sides?

Immediate compromise. Even if it's a one year deal. The union needs to bend more than the owners. Europe is just a short flight away.

You never gave any details other than "union, you're the bitch, act like it" (explain that, BTW....why does the union need to bend more?). What is involved in the compromise? What CBA would you, as a dictator, force both to live with?

[Flip]

It really boggles my mind how the owners even got in this situation. Why do they spend more money than they make, then blame it on the players? Doesnt the market drive the whole NHL economy? If a players thinks he is worth XX millions, but no one can afford it, the price should go down or he is out of a job. Instead, the owners just paid the high price, bankrupt themselves, and blame the players? This is probably a much too simplistic view of the situation, i'm sure, but i havent really looked into the whole thing besides seeing OWNERS: "We want to pay less salary!" PLAYERS: "We want more money!"

Screw the teams that are stupid, let them fail, other teams will step in and do it correctly.

[Zeus]

It really boggles my mind how the owners even got in this situation. Why do they spend more money than they make, then blame it on the players? Doesnt the market drive the whole NHL economy? If a players thinks he is worth XX millions, but no one can afford it, the price should go down or he is out of a job. Instead, the owners just paid the high price, bankrupt themselves, and blame the players? This is probably a much too simplistic view of the situation, i'm sure, but i havent really looked into the whole thing besides seeing OWNERS: "We want to pay less salary!" PLAYERS: "We want more money!"

Screw the teams that are stupid, let them fail, other teams will step in and do it correctly.

The problem is the league is full of have and have-not teams. Toronto, New York, Montreal, Boston, and about 5 or 6 others make money hand-over-fist. The cap is nothing to them and most would spend over it if they could. For Phoenix, Tampa, Florida, Carolina, and a few others, the floor of $52 million is way too high and almost ensures they will lose money unless they make the Stanley Cup finals

Because the NHL ain't the NFL when it comes to revenue-sharing (6% vs 60%), you have teams who are losing serious money. They're not the ones handing out the $114M contracts, they're the ones forced to spend $10M over 3 years on someone to reach the floor. In order to prop these teams up, you need an artificial restriction on the salaries or you'd have 8-10 teams just fold. Both sides have reason to keep those teams around (more jobs for players, national TV contract for owners).

The fight is over who should support them. The big NHL teams don't want to share their revenues, they want the players salaries to be limited to they can make additional money too rather than support the other teams with their large profits. Players are sayin' "um, you wanna give this to us, why should we stop you since we already gave you a cap"? That's the real issue

[kali o.]

You never gave any details other than "union, you're the bitch, act like it" (explain that, BTW....why does the union need to bend more?). What is involved in the compromise? What CBA would you, as a dictator, force both to live with?

Union needs to bend more -- they are the employees. If they want to work elsewhere, work elsewhere. If the NHL can't attract talent, talent goes away. If talent goes away, people lose interest. If people lose interest, owners lose money. It balances itself out.

As for, details, I don't know the bottomline for the owners. If you just want me to randomly chuck out a number for some reason, fine...49% each year, 6 year deal, no rollback on current cap for 2 years. The NHLPA was at 57%, the owners came in a 43%. It's a fair middleground, but forces owners to get their ass in gear within two years.

[Zeus]

You never gave any details other than "union, you're the bitch, act like it" (explain that, BTW....why does the union need to bend more?). What is involved in the compromise? What CBA would you, as a dictator, force both to live with?

Union needs to bend more -- they are the employees. If they want to work elsewhere, work elsewhere. If the NHL can't attract talent, talent goes away. If talent goes away, people lose interest. If people lose interest, owners lose money. It balances itself out.

As for, details, I don't know the bottomline for the owners. If you just want me to randomly chuck out a number for some reason, fine...49% each year, 6 year deal, no rollback on current cap for 2 years. The NHLPA was at 57%, the owners came in a 43%. It's a fair middleground, but forces owners to get their ass in gear within two years.

There's a major difference between the unions representing athletes and those representing, say, factory workers. The reason the owners even settled on 57% the last time is because, really, the employees ARE the product. There's nothing if there isn't a good employee. Sure you can use replacement employees but that don't work out too well when you're talking about a top-level sport. There's a reason they don't try it anymore (with anti-trust, they still can do it if they so want) after they saw how poorly it worked with the NFL and MLB in the past.

Really, the players have more negotiating power in sports than the owners when it comes to writing up contracts. The owners know it (you think Nashville wanted to pay Weber that much?) and many of them wanna go back to the pre-free agency days when they really did treat them like cattle who were lucky to feed at the trough. That's what all this has always been about, the owners trying to get back the edge over the players who get it naturally when there's actual competition.

I don't see why you think that employees naturally need to bend more. You think owners should naturally be in a position of ultimate power even if actual competition dictates otherwise? Is it just because you think "hey, you don't like it, go work somewhere else"? The owners don't want that, it'll ruin their league if the best talent is playing elsewhere. It's an illogical stance that only seems to be fed by a personal bias.

And no it doesn't balance itself out. Best thing for both players and owners is for a thriving league in the North American market. You honestly think a Europe league (including Russia) will be able to generate the kind of revenue the NHL generates? The players would certainly see their earning potential decrease (likely to less than half on average) but the owners would have nothing but empty buildings everywhere. It's just a game of chicken and the owners believe they can, again, make the players blink. That's all.

Two questions on your numbers: 1) why does your solution not include anything with respect to the owners sharing revenues amongst each other like it is in the NBA, MLB, and NFL? and 2) 49% of what? Gross revenue (like the NBA/NFL) or Net Revenue with a large amount of allowed deductions as is the current definition of HRR? Not only does your definition of a 50%/50% split change dramatically (players ain't really getting 57% now with the current definition of HRR) but you also have a large difference if you start using the other leagues' 50%/50% as a comparison

[kali o.]

Two questions on your numbers: 1) why does your solution not include anything with respect to the owners sharing revenues amongst each other like it is in the NBA, MLB, and NFL? and 2) 49% of what? Gross revenue (like the NBA/NFL) or Net Revenue with a large amount of allowed deductions as is the current definition of HRR? Not only does your definition of a 50%/50% split change dramatically (players ain't really getting 57% now with the current definition of HRR) but you also have a large difference if you start using the other leagues' 50%/50% as a comparison

I am ignoring everything else you said, because it's just you saying unions are good and I am wrong about it balancing out (no, they aren't good in a lot of scenarios and yes it does balance out...). You've flat out pointed out players aren't going to make as much in Europe, you've said "players are the product" and without them buildings will be empty. So agreeing to agree...or I guess you think you disagreed, lol.

In response to the above:

1) Because I don't need to. How the owners promote, expand and maintain the product (NHL) is their concern. I see no reason for it to be included in the main issue I tackled (the salary cap). The only way that becomes of direct concern to the players is when they try to promote idiotic schemes like Luxury Tax. So what's your point?

2) I have no idea whether it's gross or net, nor exactly what sources (if all) they use to calculate. It's whatever it currently is, which as far as I know, isn't an issue for either side. I simply took the middleground, skewed it to the owners side and froze the cap for 2 years as a matter of give and motivation (which is probably the BIGGEST issue for NHLPA and the owners would NOT like).

Bottomline is this, players are absolutely NOT getting 57% under the current system with a yearly ~7% in growth. It's untenable.

[Zeus]

The first two paragraphs of my other post you can ignore, yes, but you need to directly address the 3rd paragraph. That was a direct retort to what you said before and pointed questions asked with respect to what you stated.

I don't believe unions are necessarily "right" or "good". It's just that unlike you, I don't believe the employees are expendable in this case and should be treated like sheep and that the owners are automatically in their rights to do whatever they want with their employees. It's that kind of mentality that gave rise to unions in the first place (in all industries) and, ultimately, led to them being over-powered in North America (don't even get me started on the assholes at CAW or the myriad of public workers' unions). Remember, it's the owners who got pretty much what they wanted last time with a hard cap, found all kinds of ways to circumvent the spirit of the deal they forced down the players' throats, and are now not allowing their employees to do their jobs they're paying them to do with (with contracts they negotiated and agreed to).

And now my retort on your response to the two questions:

1) You're missing the point. Who the hell said anything about promote, expand, and maintain the product? The ONLY thing I said is "why shouldn't the owners also help the owners the way they do in every single other professional sports league?" and you haven't address that direct question yet. I would appreciate it if you did, it's a very important point which needs to be addressed.

2) Since you specifically stated "49%", you do need to answer "49% of what?" because it ain't clearly defined what you mean. 50% wasn't the middle-ground that people think it is (and that you seem to be referring to) since basically EVERYONE thinks it means "50% of Gross Revenues" or "50% of what the teams make". That's certainly not the case if you actually spend 18 seconds lookin' up the definition or HRR. This is not an insignificant point, this is the "core economic issues" they're fighting over. And if you re-define HRR to how's "Revenue" is defined and split in other leagues, you'll find that it's far closer to the 49% you're thinking of than the 57% that's used by the owners as a negotiating and PR tactic.

The point of all this is to find out why you're siding with the owners since, unlike last time, so few seem to be

[kali o.]

You are obfuscating again, so I am going to simplify.

- I actually answered everything you said.
- Treated like sheep? Yeah...millionaire sheep. If you want to exaggerate, go nuts.
- We've already established the previous CBA and growth creates an untenable scenario for the NHL. Period. If you disagree, you are likely alone.

1) That's not what you asked, actually. And since you need clarity, how the owners decide to handle their end of the revenue (including support, growth and exapnsion in weaker markets) is totally on their end. What does that have to do with my "solution" you forced me to throw out over the middelground between the two sides? I know where you are trying to go -- you think rather than deal with the cap issue directly, owners should revenue share to prop up the weaker markets or even abandon them, which is the NHLPA standpoint. Nice thought and one that simply benefits the players. I can toss the same back at you -- why should they?

2) First off, the same "revenue" used in the previous CBA is the same revenue tabled now. Owners aren't changing the definition or sources. Why do you want me to care? Even the players are fine with the definition of revenue, as their last tabled offer included 54% of new revenues over the previous year in years 3,4,5. Second, it's not the core issue. The core issue is the NHLPA unwillingness to take a cut. Offers from them work solely off the 1.87 billion current share (57%) and grow from there, albeit with a lower growth rate that the league has had over the last few years (iirc, ~7% per year). So not only do they not take a cut, they provide themselves growth independant of a revenue share, and then in year 3,4,5 **on top** of revenue share. Ya...give and take.

You asked for me to throw out a number. I did, based on the owners position, the previous CBA and with significant give. The players position amounts to 52.7%. The owners, 47.5. You asked for a middleground, I gave it to you.

[Zeus]

You're sticking to the "owners should have more power, period" POV. So answer this direct question then: do you believe that when there's perfect competition (hypothetical economic concept; we know there's never "perfect" competition, I mean as close as possible) and the employee gains greater negotiating power than the owner because of that perfect competition that the owner should automatically be artificially provided, through legislation or otherwise, a stronger negotiating position? And how strong should the negotiating power of the owner be at minimum in your mind? Absolute? Mostly absolute? Twice as strong as the employees? And, for all these questions, why should it be that way?

Another directed question then: why does it matter how much they make if they're treated like sheep? If someone makes $3M but could make $30M if it wasn't for collusion, artificial barriers, etc., you don't think they should be entitled to that additional amount? And isn't the simple fact that billionaire treat their millionaire employees like slaves an issue? You're OK with mentality like that?

"Untenable" scenario? How? There's $3.3B in HRR. More on this in point 1) below....

To respond to the two specific points:

1) If you divide the HRR of $3.3B by 30 teams, you get $110M each. Salaries will range from a min (cap floor) of $52.8M to a max (cap ceiling) of $70.2M. So, on average, you've got between $39.2M and $57.2M of contribution margin (player salaries is the only variable I'm using) PER TEAM. And that's with the definition of HRR including deductions for certain operating costs (let someone else explain it: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showt ... ?t=1262453). That certainly leaves a lot of room for profit for all teams don't you think? All the teams could survive very easily if they have some form of revenue sharing (I'm not sharing all, just a good chunk, certainly more than the 6% now).

And why should they? Simple: a lot of the current and most of the future growth of the revenues will be in the TV and other national contracts (sponsorship, advertising, etc), like the one signed with NBC a few years ago. You don't get that without teams in all markets as local TV deals ain't nearly as profitable as national ones. Since the owners even in New York and Toronto are benefitting from having teams in Arizona and Carolina, shouldn't there be significant revenue sharing? Why should all the help to the "lesser" teams come solely off the backs of the players when the larger teams are also benefitting?

2) You specifically stated "I'm skewing it a bit in favour of the owners, let's go 49%". In reality, it's not "a bit" because of how HRR is defined. It's not a true split with an additional 1% going to the owners because of your clear personal bias, it's more of a 46% for players. And this is the core issue they're going after because you can't negotiate a split if you don't agree on the definition and the NHL has tabled a different definition of HRR. And don't forget that the players are willing to take a cut as their offer stated a decrease in their HRR for 3 years. They'll probably even settle on a 50% or 51% based on the current definition of HRR but the owners ain't havin' none of that. The players just are not willing to be the only ones making a sacrifice they want the owners to help themselves too. So one side is willing to sacrifice while the other refuses and you're back the refusal side? Why should the billionaires get richer (for each dollar of salary you give back to Carolina, Toronto and New York get that extra profit too) off the backs of the millionaires while doing nothing themselves?

[kali o.]

The owners should have more power is based on my personal distaste for unions and their longterm effect. It's a discussion I am not interested in having with you, assuming that's what you are driving towards. I've already given you my basic stance.

To answer your other directed question: They are not treated "like sheep". The limits of their salary are dictated by the business the choose to affliate themselves with ("artificial barriers" as you so one-sidedly claim and all). If their talent can demand higher pay elsewhere, go elsewhere. They are not slaves. They are not mindless sheep. Your tissue waving does nothing to change that.

Untenable according to EVERY professional sports writer I've read.

1) It's not the players that get to decide profit sharing between club owners. Period. You disagree. I get it...I think you are wrong and you offer no reasoning as to why they should have a say.

2) No. You are wrong. Whatever you decide to skew the numbers at for your comfort level of reality (I don't care, stop doing it), based on the two last tabled offers (NHL & NHLPA), their respective positions based on THEIR SAME WORKING numbers were 47.5% owners and 52.7% players. That is the working difference BETWEEN their respective positions and the EXACT SAME NUMBERS. If you want to play with the numbers and make claims to me like "well, it's not *really* 49% if you look at XYZ and divide by BLARGH", you are simply going to lose me in math and make me uninterested.

The 47.5 - 52.7 gap is the ACTUAL GAP based on the parties positions on the same working numbers. That's roughly $200mil a season based on ~7% growth. I can't stress enough how little I care about your nitpicking over "real percentages" as it has ZERO relevance to the middleground I sought (FROM BOTH PARTIES OWN NUMBERS!). I've repeated it countless times and used caps...is it clear? God I hope so. You asked me to throw out a number, which I stated I didn't want to do, and are now burying me in math and nitpicks...

[Zeus]

OK, your personal distaste for unions is noted. Issue dropped. And don't forget, I dislike unions too. I just don't automatically side with management because of it

You're wrong on the "their salaries are dictated by the business they choose to affiliate themselves with" comment...unless you're agreeing with the rest of my point. The "artificial barriers" you say I say are "one-sidedly claim" is mostly the salary cap the owners shoved down the players' throats last time and now defines the business they're affiliated with. It's stops true competition from occurring as do many other points of the CBA. That's the whole point of a CBA to begin with, actually, to set up "artificial barriers" in order to achieve a certain goal and keep teams around which would disappear during a natural industry maturity as it's better for the whole if they do. And they can demand a higher salary from the very teams that are stopped by the CBA from giving it to them. Why do you think there's a limit on individual contracts (24% of the overall team salary, I believe) as well as an overall salary cap? To put artificial barriers in place in order to even the playing field in an industry which would not achieve it naturally. There is zero subjectivity in any statement in this paragraph, it's just how it is. And, for any league to survive on a nationwide scale, it's actually required. It's more the details that are the issue as opposed to the existence of artificial barriers and that's what the whole issue is now.

Yes, professional sports writers are so unbiased and look at things so objectively because they have nothing personally riding on this negotiation, particularly the hockey writers.....

1) I did offer reasoning, you're just ignoring it. Let me quickly recap: a) it's better for the league as a whole to have teams in all these places as everyone benefits, all the teams and even the players, so both should be contributing to it; b) it's unfair to have the Toronto's and New York's of the league make extra profit without any additional sacrifice while trying to force the players to almost exclusively fund these teams through artificial barriers on salaries; and c) the players are already sacrificing through the artificial barriers in place which THEY'RE NOT EVEN TRYING TO GET RID OF (I cap'd it because it's a very important point you're ignoring), why shouldn't the rich owners give a little too? Isn't this supposed to be a "partnership" (I'm quoting Commissioner Gremlin here)? You'd think that it really should be since both need each other to survive and make tons of money but if you have one side viewing the others as livestock, it doesn't bode well

2) The point I was trying to make is your split of 51/49 in favour of the owners was, in reality, significantly more than that in their favour. The reason I asked you for a number in the first place was to see what you thought was "fair" and it needs to be quantified since that's the crux of this entire dispute, the numbers. I was just trying to show you, using math to make it tangible, how your reasoning for choosing 51/49 in the first place was flawed by an unorthodox definition of the revenue base which the public seems to be largely ignoring but is a very important (even vital) part of this whole dispute. Regardless, we're not going anywhere with that particular argument so I'll drop it as well.

Yes, now they're working with the old definition of HRR from the last CBA for ease as opposed to the poorly-veiled attempt by the NHL to re-define it in their favour with their second proposal (fact, not opinion; I can find you an article on that if you want). But the real issue is this: the last time the owners forced this same system in place they came back crying for more coin after the unexpected growth made it "untenable" for about 1/4 of the league. If you don't change the structure, somehow, to even the playing field a bit, aren't we just gonna end up in the same damned place? I'm not saying the only solution is revenue sharing, it just seems to be the best one IMO. But shouldn't they at least be talking about other ways to fix a system forced by the owners last time (I keep repeating that point because it's true and now they don't like it) to ensure they don't run into this situation every 7-10 years?

Isn't it a bit ironic that over the last 15+ years, baseball is the most stable sports in terms of owners-players relations....and they don't even have a salary cap and the luxury tax is barely even a detriment?

[kali o.]

Yay. The math is gone.

I'm not agreeing with your point. Within the NHL, it is not a free market. They can set up any barriers they like, it's not incumbent on the owners to structure their business in a way that benefits not only employees, but the league as a whole. I have no idea why you don't get my standpoint. I'm not asking you to agree with it (though I struggle to see why you wouldn't). If the NHL fails to provide an environment that attracts the talent, talent will move elsewhere (or, competition will arise).

Most writers tend to side more with the players, but whatever.

1) I did not ignore anything. You are under the impression owners in lucrative markets are required to give up profit for the good of the league. I say nonsense. It's not one owner for the whole league, it's individual owners running a business. Unless the individual owners are motivated to do so for the good of their individual business (team), and by extension the NHL, then there is no reason to do so. I see no motivation for them to do so. Yet.

2) The number I provided, based on both parties actual current bargaining positions, was more than fair when you take into account a cap freeze for year 1 & 2. That remains the NHLPA's biggest issue, the massive decrease (and I am still not sure how that effects teams forced over the new CAP). The NHLPA can continue to champion revenue sharing schemes, including luxury tax, but that's ultimately not going to be involved in any way with the current CBA.

As for MLB...I have no idea. I am betting their TV contracts and revenue dwarfs anything the NHL has (nevermind football and basketball).

[Don]

This is pretty much like the basketball lockout. I don't think the owners deserve more money just because some of them are very bad at managing their teams though the players have problem too in that these schemes are usually distorted to benefit the average guy. If you talk about pure impact someone like LeBron should make $50 million on salary because he definitely gets you that much money back while the guys outside of the Big 3 should make maybe 1 million at most, but of course while LeBron wouldn't mind that everyone else would. If players are paid fair value then a team with nobody on it would have an extremely low salary too (like no more than $20 million) and hopefully they could at least make that much money, but player salary, especially the mid tier guys, are massively inflated by the system too.

As long as you've a system that basically overpays the mid tier guys the owners will have a problem because they'd end up spending too much money in a system designed to prop up your average joe's salary. It's more obvious in basketball (a guy paying $10 million is nowhere near half as valuable as LeBron who can make at most $20 million) but it's a fairly consistent theme.

[Zeus]

Yay. The math is gone.

I'm not agreeing with your point. Within the NHL, it is not a free market. They can set up any barriers they like, it's not incumbent on the owners to structure their business in a way that benefits not only employees, but the league as a whole. I have no idea why you don't get my standpoint. I'm not asking you to agree with it (though I struggle to see why you wouldn't). If the NHL fails to provide an environment that attracts the talent, talent will move elsewhere (or, competition will arise).

Most writers tend to side more with the players, but whatever.

1) I did not ignore anything. You are under the impression owners in lucrative markets are required to give up profit for the good of the league. I say nonsense. It's not one owner for the whole league, it's individual owners running a business. Unless the individual owners are motivated to do so for the good of their individual business (team), and by extension the NHL, then there is no reason to do so. I see no motivation for them to do so. Yet.

2) The number I provided, based on both parties actual current bargaining positions, was more than fair when you take into account a cap freeze for year 1 & 2. That remains the NHLPA's biggest issue, the massive decrease (and I am still not sure how that effects teams forced over the new CAP). The NHLPA can continue to champion revenue sharing schemes, including luxury tax, but that's ultimately not going to be involved in any way with the current CBA.

As for MLB...I have no idea. I am betting their TV contracts and revenue dwarfs anything the NHL has (nevermind football and basketball).

So why should the NHL or other sports leagues be treated differently when it comes to competition laws? If we expect a free market in the manufacturing industries, shouldn't there be the same rules governing the sports industries? Why do they get the anti-trust exemptions? This exemption is why the unions came to power and became so strong and why you get the whole livestock references. If they didn't have it, you know how badly the owners would be getting sued on a daily basis for breakin' basic labour laws?

Many of the writers I see feel the same way as the public in that the players get paid enough and should be happy. This is the odd time where most in the public and journalists are siding with the players because of what happened 7 years ago, but you're still seein' a decent number of the haters regardless.

1) No, I'm not saying they're required. In baseball, New York only pays money to Pittsburgh because they pay luxury tax plus a relatively small amount of revenue sharing. What I'm saying is in the situation of the NHL, kinda like the NFL if it didn't have it's system in place, you NEED it for the betterment of the league as a whole. And yes, it is a business, but like we stated above, they're not subject to the same rules as other profit-seeking ventures due to the nature of the industry. You can't just treat banks and insurance companies like you do a car company because of certain rules and factors which require different type of governance and legislation. Same idea but different execution with sports leagues, you simply cannot let them operate without specific governance and legislation. Why do you think they still have their anti-trust exemptions that baseball got back during WW2?

2) Again, why is it "more than fair", because it limits players salaries "enough"? The owners were rushin' out to get contracts in before the CBA expired, undermining their very positions. This is why you need a fundamental change to the structure of the CBA as opposed to just a fight over the figures or you'll just end up here again if revenues continue to grow. Hell, what the NHL is asking for will only be barely enough for a lot of fringe teams, if revenues grow they're gonna be fucked. It failed once, it's doomed to fail again.....except when it comes to lining the pockets of the rich teams.

And FYI: the ones forced over the cap would get relief through the 22% rollback the NHL is askin' for (24% last time), that's how you get them under the new cap.

And never forget: this isn't a strike, it's a lockout. Owners are the ones refusing to allow the games to be played. Hell, there hasn't been a strike in professional sports since 1994. Why? Because all owners will gladly destroy their fellow owners to make a buck. You need to ensure you system is in place to stop that and the NHL just ain't doin' that.

The reason the MLB has had labour peace is because they found a solution that works for everyone, rich and poor players and teams alike. NHL needs to look at that and say "how can this happen here too" so at the expiry of every CBA they're not continuously cryin' poor like they have been since '95

[Eric]

Well this thread is shaping up to be a classic.

[kali o.]

Zeus, you are really delving into issues that will not only NOT be resolved, but won't even be addressed in the current negotiations. The only portion I really want to respond to is the fact that this is a lockout, not a strike. I do not believe Owners are prepared, nor do they want, to tear down other owners. They are choosing to protect the struggling portions of the NHL (and make expansion easier), just not solely at their own expense. The goal of the NHL is to pull in TV contracts and revenue numbers similar to that of the NFL, etc. For the NHL that means expansion, not cannabilizing existing francises, and it's in the benefit of EVERYONE involved.

For the owners to choose a lockout, the issue at hand has to be a very real economic consideration, especially in light of the above. We don't need to look very hard to understand the current concerns of the NHLPA, however -- personal salary. So I am not really sure you should be ranting about competition law, the good of League and revenue sharing...I believe you are being dishonest or bias.

PS - There is nothing classic about this thread until I pull some measure of mod abuse and at least one person brings up Hitler.

[Don]

MLB doesn't have a minimum team payroll, and I think NFL actually has a working revenue sharing system not to mention they make a ton of money overall so it's easy to stay afloat when you're the most well-off pro sports in America.

Stuff like minimum team payroll really distorts the market which causes players to get pay for more than they're worth, especially when combined with a maximum player salary. Any team in the NBA is quite willing to pay LeBron the max for him to play on the team but there's only one LeBron. Since you got to spend at least 50 or so million and there's probably only 10 guys in the whole NBA worth paying the max, you inevitably end up with teams having to spend say $10 million on a random guy just to make payroll and since you know some random team probably has to spend $10 million somewhere for some average guy just to make the minimum payroll you might end up having to pay that guy $12 million just to make sure you don't lose him. I don't buy this 'must spend money to be competitive' thing if there is no minimum team payroll because if you can break even fielding a team of 30 guys making the minimum then that's not a bad deal (owning a sports franchise has extremely high side benefits, both physical and mental, even if the operation itself is neutral). Yeah your fans are going to hate you but it's a business and as long as you don't lose money, who cares? If anything I'd argue in NHL it's far less a star-driven game, that is I sure don't see one guy who can beat 3 guys by himself like LeBron in NHL so that means if your team miss out on the top 10 players you have a very high incentive to just go cheap because once you drop out of the top tier the difference between the next level and the dirt cheap guys isn't that big. But of course since these restriction exist, instead of paying $50 million for your superstar and $1 million for the other 4 tagalongs, which is actually a very solid business decision and it's pretty hard to screw up since everyone knows who the superstarss are. Instead you end up having say 2 overrated guys for $15 million and 3 guys who should be making the minimum at $5 million and 5 guys at $1 million and if you evaluate your talent poorly it is possible everyone besides the guy making $1 million is grossly overpaid and then you turn a loss, but you don't have a choice because the team payroll says you got to spend at least $50 million and you're only allied to pay $20 million max for a single person and the 10 superstars already all got claimed by other teams since it's a no brainer to pay $20 million to a superstar.

So while I don't think the owners have a right to make money, the players sort of bring it to themselves because the structure of these deals massively overinflates the salary for the average joes and those are the guys you're most likely to misjudge their talent level.

[Zeus]

Zeus, you are really delving into issues that will not only NOT be resolved, but won't even be addressed in the current negotiations. The only portion I really want to respond to is the fact that this is a lockout, not a strike. I do not believe Owners are prepared, nor do they want, to tear down other owners. They are choosing to protect the struggling portions of the NHL (and make expansion easier), just not solely at their own expense. The goal of the NHL is to pull in TV contracts and revenue numbers similar to that of the NFL, etc. For the NHL that means expansion, not cannabilizing existing francises, and it's in the benefit of EVERYONE involved.

For the owners to choose a lockout, the issue at hand has to be a very real economic consideration, especially in light of the above. We don't need to look very hard to understand the current concerns of the NHLPA, however -- personal salary. So I am not really sure you should be ranting about competition law, the good of League and revenue sharing...I believe you are being dishonest or bias.

PS - There is nothing classic about this thread until I pull some measure of mod abuse and at least one person brings up Hitler.

Before I address your points, don't dismiss the importance of the definition of HRR. It's so important that they actually were talking about it this past weekend and is one of the main issues at the crux of this dispute: http://www.torontosun.com/2012/09/30/re ... ping-block

The reason I went into a bit of a rant on the anti-trust exemption is because you keep talking about them like they're a regular business. They are not treated that way with respect to the labour laws in the US and it's a HUGE thing in how they conduct their business. The entire collective bargaining negotiating environment is defined by it, you can't look at either side the same way you would in other industries. But I agree, this will certainly not change and there's really no reason to keep going on the topic.

If owners ain't willing to cannibalize themselves then why are so many teams so willing to circumvent the CBA in any way they can? Why do you think they put the Kovalchuk rule in after his contract (and Luongo's and Pronger's)? That's before you even start talking about the review of those contracts by the league as they attempted to eliminate them. Why do you think Philly broke the unwritten rule about offer sheets, to do Nashville a favour and assisting them in the negotiations with Weber by defining his market value? Please. And that unwritten rule's been in place for a very long time, don't forget Burke's fight with Lowe when it came to Dustin Penner a few years ago or the offer sheet I believe it was Carolina who signed Federov to many moons ago that caused a huge outcry by the Wings. There's a reason The Gremlin (if I call him Hitler does that make this an instant classic? :-) changed the rule prior to the last CBA where he only needed 8 or the 30 owners' approval and put a huge gag order on the owners' side. It was to avoid the truth coming out like the Wings' exec's "sheep" comments and the embarrassment of having the Toronto's, New York's, and Boston's of the league rising up and saying "fuck Carolina/Tampa/Florida/Phoenix, we're losing way too much money here, we wanna play". There is no doubt in any way that the owners have spent an exhorbonent amount of time inventing ways to fuck each other as much as they can. Again, fact not opinion, it's all over the internet if you wanna find it.

You clearly seem to have some idealized view of the owners. They're rich billionaires who care about #1 first, second, and third and the majority couldn't care less about their weaker bretheren as they have proven repeatedly through their actions (to me, actions still speak louder than words, particularly when all of the words are filtered through one person). They look at what's better for their team and try to get it in any way they can. This is commonly referred to as "capitalism". It's natural...and something which needs to be limited with legislation which, in this case, is the CBA. This is why it's so important to change the system that, after 7 years, has proven it don't help out the little guys. It's not just about the percentages as has been proven with this past CBA the owners "won" and shoved down the players' throats that's all of a sudden "broken" (see how that point keeps comin' up?). Again, don't necessarily have to be revenue sharing, although I do believe that's the best route. But it certainly can't be the same structure as now with different percentages.

Why do you think Toronto, New York, and the other 18-20 teams who turn a healthy profit (including Winnipeg) are supporting the lockout, because they believe there's something "broken"? Because they give a shit about the Carolina's and others' of the league? No, it's because they're being promised an X return over Y years which makes a lockout of a year+ worth it from a cost-benefit analysis point of view. It's a business decision....not to mention they're ultimately powerless to stop it even if they wanted to (see the "8 of 30" comment above). So they vote for it because they can't win regardless and it's better to show solidarity than a tiny chink in the armor which will weaken their bargaining position (thank you, Mr. Devenello) if the players smell any level of blood, decreasing the possible value of X. It is that damned simple. They're not doin' it for the greater good in any way...well, maybe a couple of individual owners like Illitch are but he's very much in the minority of the majority of teams making money who'd think that way (look at Philly and he's an individual owner). Sure as shit ain't gonna come from Bell and Rogers, even though I know it will be a huge surprise to you considering how wonderfully those companies treat the public in their other business ventures....

I have never hid the fact that I side with the players a little more is based on one simple fact: the owners want to pay them this money, why should they be limited? I'm all for owners making coin hand over first, good on them. And I'm even all for a cap to a degree to help the league in general. But what's particularly offensive about this CBA negotiation and what makes me swing much more in favour of the players is that it's the third time in 17 years we've had a lockout (not a strike; another very important point) AND there's a freakin' cap in place in a system that the owners design, sealed, and delivered up the players' asses last time without even giving them the goddamn courtesy of a reach-around. Remember, they broke the union last time (I'm sure you dream of a similar situation this time) and did what they wanted....and they're still cryin' because the players found a way to benefit from getting fucked in the ass. That's when I stick my middle finger in the owners direction and say "suck it up, princesses. You made your beds, go sleep in them now".

[Zeus]

And I will agree with Don on the minimum salary point...to a degree. The reason the NHL instilled that to begin with is to ensure the owners of the lesser teams didn't fill their rosters with AHL players to pocket the money and at least attempted to be competitive. That's already been proven to be the case if you don't have a minimum roster amount in place by the Cleveland Indians for many years (where do you think the female owner in Major League came from?) and Harold Ballard in hockey and is currently the case with teams like Pittsburgh Pirates and Kansas City Royals right now.

And, as baseball has also proven, it's not going to be the only upward pressure on the salaries of mid-tier players. There is going to be a natural inflation of those salaries as your majority of teams that do make money will place an increased value on those players and compete for them. That's how you get an average salary of what, $3M in baseball without a minimum roster salary or hard cap in place? But the former will also put pressure on those salaries, for sure. It's just not going to mean those salaries will necessarily significantly decrease if you remove it.

[kali o.]

I was going to reply again (despite the fact that we will never agree), then decided to put it off until later today. Then I sat here at work and read Krys Barch's little twitter rant...

Lol. It so perfectly captures my disgust at unions and the NHLPA. Poor, poor 4th liner millionaire has the gall to compare himself to blue collar or labour and make outrageous comments about how 3/4's of the league players will have to work the next 50 years (lol!). Even if we put aside the exaggeration, am I really supposed to shed a tear that after your NHL career is done in your mid-30's, you may need to reinvest some of those millions into a new venture or business? Should I offer up a sympathetic shoulder that the 10-15 years you "worked" didn't easily offer up 50 years of retirement on some tropical beach? ....lol. Poor guys.

The owners get no sympathy from me either, but good luck getting me to side with the poor little players...Krys is the bottom end of the market too and I *know* his moronic viewpoint is shared by other delusional players.

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/10/ ... -comments/

[Don]

Well in the system the stars don't mind because they get their money elsewhere. The guy making the minimum doesn't mind because he's obviously easily replaceable and he'll happily take his $500K or whatever the minimum salary is.

The problem is that if you've a purely competitive world then the average guys will be making way less. I think the NBA average is like $5 million and I assume NHL is somewhat closer, but honestly there's no reason to pay $5 million for someone who is barely better than someone making $500K, but you got no choice due to the minimum team salary and this means the middle class guys are way overpaid, which owners claim is why they're losing money. This may or may not be true but the middle class is definitely overpaid. In a pure competitive world you'd probably just spend a ton of money on 3 really good guys and the rest you can fill with minimum salary guys because you already got your superstars, and if you miss out on those guys you might as well just have a team with all minimum guys to save the money. I saw a stat line saying Red Sox's starting line up tonight makes a total of $12 million, and obviously several NY Yankees make more than that by themselves. If you look at MLB though it's because you can load up with a bunch of minimum making guys that it's easy to stay afloat. Once you figured you don't have what it takes to get anywhere you can just dump all the guys making too much money and even a pretty weak attendence team can cover for a $12 million batting lineup. The argument for salary as a matter of parity is overrated anyway. NFL seems to have parity because they play only one game. If you have a 7 game playoff series (as little sense as that'd make) then you'd probably have only 4 teams that realistically had a shot at winning every year too.

[Zeus]

Don - average salary in the NHL for upcoming season (assuming no rollbacks) is $2.4M, less than half of the NBA but more than the NFL (who's roster size is more than double the NHL and MLB and triple the NBA): http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ycn-10423863

And yes, the average salary may drop if you leave it up to perfect competition, but not by much. And there's just as much a chance it'll go up with the elimination of the salary cap. Don't forget, the players have a very specific skill set which gives them greater negotiating power in an open market for top and mid-tier players (especially in the NBA where that one mid-tier guy could make a huge diff) but the fringe guys would make far less.

Kali - hey, there are fucking idiots on both sides of the conflict, no doubt. Barch ain't no millionaire (he's making minimum on a two-way contract most of the time) but he's certainly no line worker at a GM plant either. Even in the AHL a guy like him would be making professional-like money at $60k+ a year.

But that doesn't distract from the fact that the ones cryin' the most are the billionaires who shoved a CBA they designed down the millionaires' throats because their billions ain't enough and the millionaires have found ways to enjoy their ass-fucking. And they're so fucking hypocritical it's crazy (even Phoenix rushed to sign Doan to a big contract - for a 36 year-old - before Sept 15; overall, they were a TON of contracts they tried to get in before the deadline: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/15 ... r-20120915). Don't even forget who caused this "issue" to begin with....

I look forward to your full reply, gives me something to distract me from boring work :-)

[Don]

The average probably wouldn't drop very much, you'd just have the star players making $50 million while the average guy makes a lot less.

But that'd mean it's a lot easier to manage if you miss out on a star player (just get a bunch of cheapo guys) instead of paying for a bunch of mid tier guys who may or may not be any better than the minimum guys and also have no star appeal.