There will be a strike

[SKYO]

Hard to believe after all the revenue the NHL is making and it's rising success, the owners want more and halted all of it's momentum/success, especially in the big American markets!

And so now Bettman and his cronies have got another lockout, are they trying to catch up to MLB?

""
Q: IT SEEMS LIKE LABOR STRIFE IS COMMON TO THE NHL. IS THAT TRUE?

A: It was been during the past two decades. Players struck in 1992, a walkout settled on the 11th day after 30 games were postponed. A 103-day lockout in 1994-95 led to the cancellation of 468 games, reducing each team's schedule from 82 games to 48. Another lockout eliminated the 2004-05 season, making the NHL the first major pro sports league in North America to lose an entire season to a labor dispute. It was settled on the 301st day, July 13, 2005, after players agreed to a salary cap.

Q: WHICH OF THE U.S. MAJOR LEAGUES HAS HAD THE MOST LABOR TURMOIL?

A: Major League Baseball still leads with eight work stoppages (five strikes and three lockouts), the last a 7 1/2-month strike that led to the cancellation of the 1994 World Series. The NFL has had five stoppages (four strikes and one lockout) and the NBA four (all lockouts).

----

Q: SO WHY HAS BASEBALL BEEN FREE FROM LABOR STRIFE OF LATE?

A: It's likely not a coincidence that the three major U.S. leagues with salary caps all have had turmoil. Since the 1994-95 strike, baseball players and owners have concluded agreements without stoppages in 2002, 2006 and last year, finding that they can make concessions in certain areas in exchange for gains in others. The sports with the cap systems appear somewhat more restricted, with less areas of back-and-forth since the basic structure is in place.

Read more here: http://www.sunherald.com/2012/09/14/418 ... rylink=cpy
""

[Topper]

UK, There is nothing wrong with someone, be it individual owner, corporation or player wanting to make more money. A major tenant of evolution is that of the individual looking for what is best for itself.

Under the current CBA, revenues and salaries have gone up, as has the cap. Each year we debate an escalating or decreasing cap and often we do so with each new player contract negotiation rumoured or real.

The players now feel an entitlement to 57% Neither side has had to endure a decreasing cap. The fans understand that the cap may go down. The league understands the cap can decrease. The players are avoiding the issue.

Tant brought back an very important issue when he mentioned exchange rates. Not so long ago we had a 65cent US dollar here in Canada and folks were calling it the Canadian Peso. The pendulum has swung. How long before contracts are in Canadian dollars and US teams are crying foul?

I'm surprised that HRR has grown as much as it has and certainly attribute a good portion of that to favourable exchange rates in hockey mad markets. The key word in HRR is revenue. It is solely the money coming in and does not include costs. The costs of running a team have skyrocketed. Fuel, power, promotion, salaries (player and other management and staff), accommodation, and travel have all seen large increases.

For a comparable, Nick Holland, the CEO of the world's 4th largest gold producer, South Africa's Gold Fields, said in a talk in Denver this week that while gold prices are at all time highs (think HRR), costs are also at all and all time high. While current gold price may be $1700US/oz, long term forecasts, most companies use +/-$1300US/oz. Well guess where real mining costs are currently, $1300US/oz. Long term, the industry is set for a massive setback. Back to the NHL model, without a rollback in other costs outside the owners control, something has to give and that something is one thing they do have some control over, player salaries.

EDIT: NHL wins their case in Quebec.

[wienerdog]

UK, There is nothing wrong with someone, be it individual owner, corporation or player wanting to make more money. A major tenant of evolution is that of the individual looking for what is best for itself.

Under the current CBA, revenues and salaries have gone up, as has the cap. Each year we debate an escalating or decreasing cap and often we do so with each new player contract negotiation rumoured or real.

The players now feel an entitlement to 57% Neither side has had to endure a decreasing cap. The fans understand that the cap may go down. The league understands the cap can decrease. The players are avoiding the issue.

Tant brought back an very important issue when he mentioned exchange rates. Not so long ago we had a 65cent US dollar here in Canada and folks were calling it the Canadian Peso. The pendulum has swung. How long before contracts are in Canadian dollars and US teams are crying foul?

I'm surprised that HRR has grown as much as it has and certainly attribute a good portion of that to favourable exchange rates in hockey mad markets. The key word in HRR is revenue. It is solely the money coming in and does not include costs. The costs of running a team have skyrocketed. Fuel, power, promotion, salaries (player and other management and staff), accommodation, and travel have all seen large increases.

For a comparable, Nick Holland, the CEO of the world's 4th largest gold producer, South Africa's Gold Fields, said in a talk in Denver this week that while gold prices are at all time highs (think HRR), costs are also at all and all time high. While current gold price may be $1700US/oz, long term forecasts, most companies use +/-$1300US/oz. Well guess where real mining costs are currently, $1300US/oz. Long term, the industry is set for a massive setback. Back to the NHL model, without a rollback in other costs outside the owners control, something has to give and that something is one thing they do have some control over, player salaries.

EDIT: NHL wins their case in Quebec.

Why bother? There's no reasoning with a zealot, Tops.

All I know is the Tourette's-like "grab the pitchforks!!" response to you is certainly coming down the pipe - wait for it, wait...

[tantalum]

double post

[tantalum]

Ps the only difference between this lockout and the goals of Bettman and his cronies and a multinational outsourcing jobs is the scope and the decimal point.
The NHL wants to lower it's labour costs and will everything that they can to do so. ( don't fool yourself, if they could outsource they would do it in a heartbeat)
The PA is trying to prevent the loss of jobs, pay and rights. Which is exactly what is lost when Nike makes it's shoes in the jungle...0

One more time I'm drawn in....

The only difference is that the NHL isn't trying to outsource jobs. THey aren't raiding retirment funds. THey aren't taking away benefits. THey aren't making life less comfortable on the job and removing perks (far from it most teams are going the route of treating players first class in everything...and that costs money). They are trying to stabilize the league so that a well run team can make a profit (despite the rhetoric there is no way the league truly believes every team should make a profit no matter what. They want a well run team to be able to make a profit and if you have bad management it sucks to be you). And guess what when that happens they can ADD jobs through expansion (and hey the players could even get a piece of that pie perhaps if they wanted). It so not even the same thing and don't even bother trying to equate it to some other blue collar unionized workforce.

It quite simply isn't even remotely the same. We are first of all talking about a proposed paycut that will for essentially every single NHL player be a meaningless one to the quality of their life now and in the future (and again it is only proposed it won't even be one once negotiations are done and they step it down over a few years). THis isn't mechanics making 60k a year being asked for a 10k rollback on salary. The lowest player in the league is looking to move from 525k to about 475k under the league offer (and that will increase as revenues increase of course). If that difference makes a player homeless or unable to feed the family he has far more other problems than the rollback. It's a pittance to each individual player in the grand scheme of things. But it is NOT a pittance to the team and helps them actually generate a cash return on their investment.

The PA is NOT trying to prevent loss of jobs. Geez that's not even on the table or a reality.

I didn't take the ideological bankrupt personally. I took it as beyond stupid and not worth my time anymore to continue to respond to someone who (a) has no idea my background and (b) has no idea what I think. Each situation is different and in this situation the owners are not looking for blood they really aren't. They might is the PA continues to avoid the issue but they aren't doing so right now.

I'm also tired of hearing "the revenues are rising the revenues are rising" Yes they are but so too are costs and they are outpacing revenue growth. Players salary is just one of those costs that has outpaced it. There is another side to the balance sheet people and everyone including the players puts the league wide TOTAL profit at somewhere between 5-9 mil a club. Half of that total is two teams (rangers, leaves). Something like 80% of it is 4 teams (adding in the canucks and Habs). The PA doesn't even dispute this as if they did and they thought the owners were inflating expenses to create some sort of argument they would be all over it. They aren't. Too many reputable financial sources put their reputation somewhat on the line with those numbers. It's not a great business to be in and it behooves everyone including players to attract the highest end talent when it comes to owners as that provides for stable and successful teams. But it's hard to attract those owners when the economics suggest the investment is not likely to provide an operational profit. The teams are now too big of an investment to only count on an escalation of team value. I'm pretty sure if a player were investing $150+ mil on a business they'd like a little more than $5 mil in operational income as a return every year.

And please let us not forget that a good chunk of the reason the players put so much into escrow right now is because THEY have chosen the 5% inflator to the cap every single time they've had a chance. A higher cap pulls teams and salaries on paper higher but because it outpaces revenue they get hit with larger escrow amounts.


and shockingly (well no not shocking) the PA loses the case in quebec which was likely there best shot out of all the jurisdictions. By Monday or so when the Alberta one gets turned down they will be left with the decertification trick for leverage. That typically hasn't gone well for players unions in the past. edit: not really lost per se just that the board really doesn't want to deal with it so they postponed things to some undetermined later date. Essentially the government ain't going to get involved.

[coco_canuck]

I hope you are correct in it not being a long lockout. I have my doubts based on things guys like Bobby Mac and others have said. Many of these players wanted to bring in Fehr not because they want to really negotiate a fair deal but because they want him to try to Goodenow Bettman. My hope is that Fehr understands that would be stupid but ultimately he too takes direction from the players. If the guys running the show want that we are in for a long haul until another Trevor Linden or faction of players step to the forefront and forces things to happen.

I've read the same stories, and Bobby Mac's was somewhat disconcernting, but I'm not really sure we're at a stage where the PA has gone full militant.

This mostly reeks of posturing and the PA trying to get leverage in a situation where they really don't have any leverage unless they go full militant. The hope on the PA side is that the league takes them more seriously and makes more movement.

If that fails and the league hunkers down, the PA will be in a no-win situation.

I find it interesting actually that 25% of the Habs players and 50% of the Alberta team players did not participate in the filings to the labour boards in those provinces (16 habs players and 21 total flames and oilers did). You know the PA would prepare everything and would just need their permission to file it on their behalf. I don't want to read too much into it but to me those numbers may be encouraging from a settlement stand point.

A lot of players just want to get back on the ice, and do not want to miss out on any money.

It's really difficult for a union compromised of hundreds of players who are basically independent contractors with varying career shelf-lives....not everyone is keen on missing a quarter of a season's worth of pay, let alone a full season's worth.

If the PA is committed to being militant, then it's going to be a losing proposition due to the inability to keep hundreds of players on the same page. I don't see them being that stupid considering the current state of the game.

(As an aside, and I don't believe this is a driving force at all btw, can you imagine the pats on the back Bettman will get from every league if he takes down Fehr! The reason i don't believe this is a driving force is because Fehr and Bettman actually, from all reports, have a good working relationship when not in PR mode).

Bettman has already garned a lot of clout amongst the head-offices of the other major sports leagues, and if he spells the end of Fehr....

Whatever anyone's opinion of Fehr and Bettman is, they're both very intelligent, and should understand the extent of their leverage considering their vast experience.

Having said all that, it's naive to say that the power game and egos involved have no chance of getting in the way...they may very well do, but I just think it's too soon to say we're at that stage.

[Mr.Miyagi]

I am really disappointed. That is all I have to say. I cant take sides with either owners nor players. I am pissed at everyone right now. The league is a joke.

[ukcanuck]

UK, There is nothing wrong with someone, be it individual owner, corporation or player wanting to make more money. A major tenant of evolution is that of the individual looking for what is best for itself.

Under the current CBA, revenues and salaries have gone up, as has the cap. Each year we debate an escalating or decreasing cap and often we do so with each new player contract negotiation rumoured or real.

The players now feel an entitlement to 57% Neither side has had to endure a decreasing cap. The fans understand that the cap may go down. The league understands the cap can decrease. The players are avoiding the issue.

Tant brought back an very important issue when he mentioned exchange rates. Not so long ago we had a 65cent US dollar here in Canada and folks were calling it the Canadian Peso. The pendulum has swung. How long before contracts are in Canadian dollars and US teams are crying foul?

I'm surprised that HRR has grown as much as it has and certainly attribute a good portion of that to favourable exchange rates in hockey mad markets. The key word in HRR is revenue. It is solely the money coming in and does not include costs. The costs of running a team have skyrocketed. Fuel, power, promotion, salaries (player and other management and staff), accommodation, and travel have all seen large increases.

For a comparable, Nick Holland, the CEO of the world's 4th largest gold producer, South Africa's Gold Fields, said in a talk in Denver this week that while gold prices are at all time highs (think HRR), costs are also at all and all time high. While current gold price may be $1700US/oz, long term forecasts, most companies use +/-$1300US/oz. Well guess where real mining costs are currently, $1300US/oz. Long term, the industry is set for a massive setback. Back to the NHL model, without a rollback in other costs outside the owners control, something has to give and that something is one thing they do have some control over, player salaries.

EDIT: NHL wins their case in Quebec.

I have never said there was something wrong with wanting to make a buck. Of course in this economic system the pursuit of capital is what drives all of our collective wealth. I've agreed with that position in past posts on this and other boards focusing on CBA negotiations. And perhaps, I have allowed emotion over some of the lack of knowledge, reason or understanding in the things being said to lead me to charge my words with more feeling than is called for.

However, the fact is that during the last lockout the owners claimed the system was broken and they needed cost certainty as if that were justification for an artificial drag on player contract values. The deal was (as I remember it,) that the 57% of HRR (btw we could have another entire discussion as to what constitutes HHR) was the carrot agreed upon in order to make the cap (a travesty of injustice by its self) palatable so as far as I am concerned pulling 57 % puts the cap back on the table...it was then and is now a completely shitty concept. As a fan we are now all accountants and it places limits on what a player can earn that is not relative to what he brings to the table. Salary cap by another name is wage and price controls and that if you remember is a term capitalists spat out with such contempt in economic hard times past.


Anyway the cap is here and if I also remember correctly and think I do, the revenue sharing link suggested by the players then and now has never been seriously adopted and I'm not talking about the limited currency compensation sharing thing they agreed to and which more than one or two people here think is real revenue sharing. I’m talking about real sharing of revenue before expenses which includes every one's salaries from the peanut vendor to the CEO and all of the capital costs and all of the increases in expenses like the trainers, charter planes, fuels taxes, etc. (and they deserve no more credit for providing those things, than does your barber for providing a nice chair and hair gel with your haircut)


Now clearly with sad sack franchises in the south (thanks for that Gary) revenue sharing wont be enough so players share will have to come down to compensate but with the owners shouldering half of the responsibility and all of the blame for running the league into the ground like they have, the onus would fall to the players... now if the players then say screw you we wont take less, then and only then is there any moral high ground to say the players are unreasonable are money grubbing, greedy or throwing each other under a bus.

But that’s not what is happening here, no one can say what Bettman's really wants but the solution is right in front of him as it is in the NFL and MLB in two different forms and he continues to call them diversions. He wants that pay cut and then he will talk...I'm sorry I don't believe him or his cadre of wealthy owners when they cry poverty a drowning man doesn’t throw back the life preserver because he doesn't like the colour.

As for your mining example about costs rising faster than revenues, well that’s true and its a shame, but my costs are rising faster than my income, same for you, same for everyone, but try whining about it like the Bett men do and see who cares?
Besides when you transfer the model to the NHL, ticket prices have increased tenfold, beer, peanuts, parking, the whole experience has increased to cover all of this mess, so if anyone is losing money they aren't running their popsicle stick factory very well and Bettman needs to go and the changes that need to be made, need to made before the players rights are trampled.

[ukcanuck]

UK...

Why bother? There's no reasoning with a zealot, Tops.

All I know is the Tourette's-like "grab the pitchforks!!" response to you is certainly coming down the pipe - wait for it, wait...

Does Wiener feel better now that he has contributed nothing to the conversation? Have something intelligent to say? say it. Otherwise, condescension is not evidence of IQ...

[ukcanuck]

Ps the only difference between this lockout and the goals of Bettman and his cronies and a multinational outsourcing jobs is the scope and the decimal point.
The NHL wants to lower it's labour costs and will everything that they can to do so. ( don't fool yourself, if they could outsource they would do it in a heartbeat)
The PA is trying to prevent the loss of jobs, pay and rights. Which is exactly what is lost when Nike makes it's shoes in the jungle...0

One more time I'm drawn in....

Don't do me any favours Tant. I'm sorry if I insulted you it wasn't my intention, but I am not stupid. If you want to discuss things fine, but don't lower yourself if its so painful.

[SKYO]

Oh snap uk laying down the law.

-

Instant Vancouver Giant fan now.

[Topper]

I have never said there was something wrong with wanting to make a buck.

Morally bankrupt is what you implied.

And perhaps, I have allowed emotion over some of the lack of knowledge, reason or understanding in the things being said to lead me to charge my words with more feeling than is called for.

LOL

However, the fact is that during the last lockout the owners claimed the system was broken and they needed cost certainty as if that were justification for an artificial drag on player contract values. The deal was (as I remember it,) that the 57% of HRR (btw we could have another entire discussion as to what constitutes HHR) was the carrot agreed upon in order to make the cap (a travesty of injustice by its self) palatable so as far as I am concerned pulling 57 % puts the cap back on the table...it was then and is now a completely shitty concept. As a fan we are now all accountants and it places limits on what a player can earn that is not relative to what he brings to the table. Salary cap by another name is wage and price controls and that if you remember is a term capitalists spat out with such contempt in economic hard times past.

Easy, get rid of guaranteed contracts.

Anyway the cap is here and if I also remember correctly and think I do, the revenue sharing link suggested by the players then and now has never been seriously adopted and I'm not talking about the limited currency compensation sharing thing they agreed to and which more than one or two people here think is real revenue sharing. I’m talking about real sharing of revenue before expenses which includes every one's salaries from the peanut vendor to the CEO and all of the capital costs and all of the increases in expenses like the trainers, charter planes, fuels taxes, etc. (and they deserve no more credit for providing those things, than does your barber for providing a nice chair and hair gel with your haircut)

By definition, revenue is before expenses. I noted that in the post you quoted.

Now clearly with sad sack franchises in the south (thanks for that Gary) revenue sharing wont be enough so players share will have to come down to compensate but with the owners shouldering half of the responsibility and all of the blame for running the league into the ground like they have, the onus would fall to the players... now if the players then say screw you we wont take less, then and only then is there any moral high ground to say the players are unreasonable are money grubbing, greedy or throwing each other under a bus.

There is nothing clear in your statement. The expansion to the south was prior to Gary Bettman's tenure as commissioner of the NHL. The league has not been run into the ground, instead revenues are at an all time high as are player salaries. But so are all other costs associated with running a franchise. The league is looking at preserving the viability of all teams. If the players wish to see the league contract and their job opportunities reduced, so be it.

But that’s not what is happening here, no one can say what Bettman's really wants but the solution is right in front of him as it is in the NFL and MLB in two different forms and he continues to call them diversions. He wants that pay cut and then he will talk...I'm sorry I don't believe him or his cadre of wealthy owners when they cry poverty a drowning man doesn’t throw back the life preserver because he doesn't like the colour.

The NFL has a cap and contracts, other than for marquee players, are not guaranteed. Is the NHLPA willing to give up guaranteed contracts? MLB is the only league that has an exception from US combine laws.

As for your mining example about costs rising faster than revenues, well that’s true and its a shame, but my costs are rising fasterthan my income, same for you, same for everyone, but try whining about it like the Bett men do and see who cares?
Besides when you transfer the model to the NHL, ticket prices have increased tenfold, beer, peanuts, parking, the whole experience has increased to cover all of this mess, so if anyone is losing money they aren't running their popsicle stick factory very well and Bettman needs to go and the changes that need to be made, need to made before the players rights are trampled.

So you agree that the rate of cost increases is higher than the rate of revenue increases, but you advocate stepping on the concession vendor rather than the player to make up the loss. How magnanimous.

[SKYO]

Oh snap topper laying down the law.

-

Instant Vancouver Giant fan now.

[rats19]

[quote="SKYO"]Oh snap topper laying down the law.


Quit using worms...... bait restriction enforced...

[Topper]

Oh snap topper laying down the law.


Quit using worms...... bait restriction enforced...

Some hooks may be barbed.