JoeF Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 So the players and owners are meeting tomorrow without Bettman and Goodenow (union chief). This is the most curious strike I have ever seen. 1) Most of the owners (like Pete Karmanos here in Raleigh) will lose less money if the season never starts. There are only a few exceptions to this rule -- Toronto, Rangers, Flyers..They are actually better off letting the strike go on and filing a motion to cease recognition of the players union with the national labor relations board. 2) There is no big TV contract revenue---limited financial upside for the owners, yet they continue to outspend revenues in almost all cases... 3) The players think this "in the red" operating model of most teams losing money is somehow sustainable. That their ownership group will somehow continue to want to lose money because hockey is their toy and they make money on other businesses (not realistic in most cases these days). 4) The players offer a substantial salary cut from this year's salaries but won't agree to a reasonable cap that will still keep average salaries high but allow for a more palatable financial model. Cap would rise as revenue rises. I guess this is like every other pro strike but this one seems so stupid--hockey has no honey hole revenue source like the NFL TV contract or MLB TV, radio and burgeoning internet rights...if you really want to save the sport and care about the fans you sit down and hammer out a reasonable cap and move on...maybe even purge some franchises that have no hope of making money (including our beloved Hurricanes in Raleigh)...am I missing something here or does the ego factor just cause this my opinion to be a too simplistic view of the world... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 So the players and owners are meeting tomorrow without Bettman and Goodenow (union chief). This is the most curious strike I have ever seen. 1) Most of the owners (like Pete Karmanos here in Raleigh) will lose less money if the season never starts. There are only a few exceptions to this rule -- Toronto, Rangers, Flyers..They are actually better off letting the strike go on and filing a motion to cease recognition of the players union with the national labor relations board. 2) There is no big TV contract revenue---limited financial upside for the owners, yet they continue to outspend revenues in almost all cases... 3) The players think this "in the red" operating model of most teams losing money is somehow sustainable. That their ownership group will somehow continue to want to lose money because hockey is their toy and they make money on other businesses (not realistic in most cases these days). 4) The players offer a substantial salary cut from this year's salaries but won't agree to a reasonable cap that will still keep average salaries high but allow for a more palatable financial model. Cap would rise as revenue rises. I guess this is like every other pro strike but this one seems so stupid--hockey has no honey hole revenue source like the NFL TV contract or MLB TV, radio and burgeoning internet rights...if you really want to save the sport and care about the fans you sit down and hammer out a reasonable cap and move on...maybe even purge some franchises that have no hope of making money (including our beloved Hurricanes in Raleigh)...am I missing something here or does the ego factor just cause this my opinion to be a too simplistic view of the world... 210620[/snapback] I think your point #3 does not reflect the general view of players I have heard in terms of reflecting that there is some diversity of opinion and many players would be happy to cross the picket line and even under the new contract would receive more money than they have in their lives to this point or meet some immediate financial need they have because of illness in their family or mismanaging their money. However, I think it also does not reflect the view of the lionshare of NHL players who control the union who: 1. Do not want to be used to restore a sustainable fiscal model to the NHL when not enough has been done to rein in owners who gave them the unsustainable deals in the first place. 2. Have actually made far more money than they ever have seen from the fatted calf of the NHL over the last few years under their non-sustainable business modeled which has been fueled by fat cats choosing to pay too big contracts. 3. Many NHL players are doing quite fine because they have arranged to play in Europe for less money but still bigger bucks than they would get if they worked for a living, they have contracts like Thomas Vanek which pays them big bucks fir perfecting their game in the minors which is what they would be doing anyway, and this strike was a long time in coming and players of even average intellect have salted away enough money from their past lining up at the owner's trough that they can go a year or more without working. Like the NFL, a deal will eventually be worked out I suspect that will mean an increased partnership between the owners and the players. In the NFL this happened when the owners essentially broke the union in the mid-80s replacement player strike where the players demanded 52% of the gross. The union responded to being beaten by actually threatening to disband and thus force the owners to live in a true free-market where efforts like the draft the NFL colluded with the NFLPA to hold would be eliminated. If the owners were forced to live in a freeer market where the owners with the most money and willingness could buy the best players it would have been the end of football as stalwarts like the Rooneys or small-market owners like RWS would lose out to the Dan Snyders and Jerry Jones's of the world. The NFL instead agreed with the union to collude to dedcate 65-70% pf tyhe "designated" gross to player salaries. This designated amount does not count huge cash streams like luxury boxes, but as the stability and labor peace has allowed for huge revenue gains from TV, the players are making far more money than they ever had before and have a truer operating partnership rather than a battle with the owners. My guess is that the NHL strike will likely end one of three ways: 1. Dissension among the players eventually boils over and Goodenow and the union are essentially broken. When this happens the players will fall back into decertifying the union and more real partnership will be negotiated with the players gaining greater power and authority but losing the owners as the TV-type cashcow. 2, Cooler heads will prevail and they will agree to adopt an NFL style agreement where the players recieve less cash but get more shared control (I really doubt this will happen because it involves too much shared interest and not enough individual interest). 3. There is tons of capital in North America but a limited number of the best hockey players. Things may come to head where there is a recognition that the owners are pretty replaceable and the playera are the bankable commodity with not easily reproduced talents. If enough cash cows can be organized (somewhat doubtful because there is better money to be made raping the rainforest) the owners may find themselves on the outs. I think you misstate #3 because while there is no cash cow to pay for the league like TV, there are a lot rich people and one guys green is the same color as another's the difficulty is in organizing them but the longer the player's can hold out because they had ample time to arrange their finances and other smaller cash cow efforts, the more possible it is that the NHL (or whatever its new name is) will organize replacement owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disco Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 So the players and owners are meeting tomorrow without Bettman and Goodenow (union chief). This is the most curious strike I have ever seen. 1) Most of the owners (like Pete Karmanos here in Raleigh) will lose less money if the season never starts. There are only a few exceptions to this rule -- Toronto, Rangers, Flyers..They are actually better off letting the strike go on and filing a motion to cease recognition of the players union with the national labor relations board. 2) There is no big TV contract revenue---limited financial upside for the owners, yet they continue to outspend revenues in almost all cases... 3) The players think this "in the red" operating model of most teams losing money is somehow sustainable. That their ownership group will somehow continue to want to lose money because hockey is their toy and they make money on other businesses (not realistic in most cases these days). 4) The players offer a substantial salary cut from this year's salaries but won't agree to a reasonable cap that will still keep average salaries high but allow for a more palatable financial model. Cap would rise as revenue rises. I guess this is like every other pro strike but this one seems so stupid--hockey has no honey hole revenue source like the NFL TV contract or MLB TV, radio and burgeoning internet rights...if you really want to save the sport and care about the fans you sit down and hammer out a reasonable cap and move on...maybe even purge some franchises that have no hope of making money (including our beloved Hurricanes in Raleigh)...am I missing something here or does the ego factor just cause this my opinion to be a too simplistic view of the world... 210620[/snapback] I really think it just comes down to the players hoping if they draw the process out long enough the owners might somehow consider a solution w/o a salary cap. There's really no reason for the players to jump out and offer a cap...and obviously no reasons for the owners to accept an agreement w/o one. I imagine we'll all just wait until the players finally give in, they certainly have no other cards to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 So the players and owners are meeting tomorrow without Bettman and Goodenow (union chief). This is the most curious strike I have ever seen. 1) Most of the owners (like Pete Karmanos here in Raleigh) will lose less money if the season never starts. There are only a few exceptions to this rule -- Toronto, Rangers, Flyers..They are actually better off letting the strike go on and filing a motion to cease recognition of the players union with the national labor relations board. 2) There is no big TV contract revenue---limited financial upside for the owners, yet they continue to outspend revenues in almost all cases... 3) The players think this "in the red" operating model of most teams losing money is somehow sustainable. That their ownership group will somehow continue to want to lose money because hockey is their toy and they make money on other businesses (not realistic in most cases these days). 4) The players offer a substantial salary cut from this year's salaries but won't agree to a reasonable cap that will still keep average salaries high but allow for a more palatable financial model. Cap would rise as revenue rises. I guess this is like every other pro strike but this one seems so stupid--hockey has no honey hole revenue source like the NFL TV contract or MLB TV, radio and burgeoning internet rights...if you really want to save the sport and care about the fans you sit down and hammer out a reasonable cap and move on...maybe even purge some franchises that have no hope of making money (including our beloved Hurricanes in Raleigh)...am I missing something here or does the ego factor just cause this my opinion to be a too simplistic view of the world... 210620[/snapback] Actually, at this point I don't even know that the owners and players' union could explain it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 I've heard that a lot of people are blaming Bettman and Goodenow for the current problems. That's why the meeting between owners and players is happening, i.e. to get those 2 idiots out of the equation. However when all is said and done, the owners realize that for the long-term survival of the NHL, they have to have a cap that limits salaries to a percetage of revenue so that no team loses money, much less the majority of teams, and that subsidizing the league from the owners' outside businesses is NOT a feasible solution (lest the players are also put to work in their factories and such). The players however see the cap as restraining and don't want it, and care about the short-term because that's all that affects them. Who cares about the NHL in 7 to 8 years? Most of the current players won't be around then. But the owners will win because they'll threaten to use replacements and WILL use them if the players don't agree to a cap prior to the start of next season, and more than a few players will cross the picket lines and the strike will break down. So the faster the players accept the inevitable, the less money they lose than had they accepted a cap in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeF Posted January 19, 2005 Author Share Posted January 19, 2005 My guess is that the NHL strike will likely end one of three ways: 1. Dissension among the players eventually boils over and Goodenow and the union are essentially broken. When this happens the players will fall back into decertifying the union and more real partnership will be negotiated with the players gaining greater power and authority but losing the owners as the TV-type cashcow. 2, Cooler heads will prevail and they will agree to adopt an NFL style agreement where the players recieve less cash but get more shared control (I really doubt this will happen because it involves too much shared interest and not enough individual interest). 3. There is tons of capital in North America but a limited number of the best hockey players. Things may come to head where there is a recognition that the owners are pretty replaceable and the playera are the bankable commodity with not easily reproduced talents. If enough cash cows can be organized (somewhat doubtful because there is better money to be made raping the rainforest) the owners may find themselves on the outs. I think you misstate #3 because while there is no cash cow to pay for the league like TV, there are a lot rich people and one guys green is the same color as another's the difficulty is in organizing them but the longer the player's can hold out because they had ample time to arrange their finances and other smaller cash cow efforts, the more possible it is that the NHL (or whatever its new name is) will organize replacement owners. 210647[/snapback] Reasonable view FFS--thanks for perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 I've heard that a lot of people are blaming Bettman and Goodenow for the current problems. That's why the meeting between owners and players is happening, i.e. to get those 2 idiots out of the equation. However when all is said and done, the owners realize that for the long-term survival of the NHL, they have to have a cap that limits salaries to a percetage of revenue so that no team loses money, much less the majority of teams, and that subsidizing the league from the owners' outside businesses is NOT a feasible solution (lest the players are also put to work in their factories and such). The players however see the cap as restraining and don't want it, and care about the short-term because that's all that affects them. Who cares about the NHL in 7 to 8 years? Most of the current players won't be around then. But the owners will win because they'll threaten to use replacements and WILL use them if the players don't agree to a cap prior to the start of next season, and more than a few players will cross the picket lines and the strike will break down. So the faster the players accept the inevitable, the less money they lose than had they accepted a cap in the first place. 210679[/snapback] Yes but, 1. The players do not want to take the pain of lower salaries to "save" the league while the owners who stupidly kept shoveling money to the players do nothing to change or restrin their bad business sense. 2. If the owners nuke the players and hire replacements or break the union and the union decertaifies itself then away goes the draft. drug restrictions and other devices by which the players and owners collude and stop the owners from having to buy players and make individual agreements in a free market. The owners and the league cannot survive in a free-market and they will be loathe to nuke the players and force them to create it. I think the owners are in a not very good position because one of the thngs there is alot of in this society is capital and it will be a tough organizing task but they can be replaced if there is nothing in it for the players because they have been broken or replaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper13 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 It's a lockout, not a strike. Big difference. Owners locked out the players, the players didn't go on strike. My opinion is that the whole thing is a big joke. They are arguing over money that isn't there to begin with and will never be there in the future. 350 NHL players are over playing in Europe & Russia and the average salary there is $350,000 US. Most of the players aren't hurting for money. Plus, they are all getting $10,000 a month in lockout pay. I wish I made $10,000 a month for doing nothing. Basically, the fans are saving money by not wasting big bucks on tickets to watch a crappy product. The owners aren't losing as much money not playing than they would be by playing. The players are crying that they will only make $2 million a season instead of $4 million. Scrap the whole thing and start over. It's laughable to me that players or owners think people really care that there is no NHL hockey. Bunch of idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Yes but, 1. The players do not want to take the pain of lower salaries to "save" the league while the owners who stupidly kept shoveling money to the players do nothing to change or restrin their bad business sense. That doesn't matter. The NFL had a similar thing but Pete Rozelle got the salary cap instituted. And the ultimate source of the greed is the players and specifically their agents. 2. If the owners nuke the players and hire replacements or break the union and the union decertaifies itself then away goes the draft. drug restrictions and other devices by which the players and owners collude and stop the owners from having to buy players and make individual agreements in a free market. The owners and the league cannot survive in a free-market and they will be loathe to nuke the players and force them to create it. If the league folds, then what? It's not easy to restart a long-established league or to create an entirely new league, and it won't be done quickly. I think the owners are in a not very good position because one of the thngs there is alot of in this society is capital and it will be a tough organizing task but they can be replaced if there is nothing in it for the players because they have been broken or replaced. The owners are in a great position. Most are losing money each year and are losing LESS money by not playing, but they make a load with their outside businesses. The players OTOH ARE losing money and valuable years from their career. They'll cave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 What these two sides need to do is get some common sense. Both sides are being hurt by the damage that they're doing to their fan base. It took MLB years (plus some steroids, juiced balls and corked bats) to win back the fans they lost after its last strike. The NHL doesn't have the sizable fan base, long traditions and TV contracts that MLB had to help them recover. I think that the NFL has proven its business model is ideal for the owners, players and fans. Too bad greed and short sightedness have taken hold in the NHL because it could kill the owners, players and fan base. To quote Voltaire, "Common sense is not so common." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts