Equally Obnoxious Hockey Trash Talk Thread, eh?

[Homercidal]

You said it's the players who are giving everything - the owners are offering no concessions. I agree with this, but please tell me what exactly the owners have to offer. What could they offer?

Also I'm curious as to how much cheaper you think ticket prices should get to attract fans to places like Phoenix and Tampa.

I couldn't give a crap about ticket prices in Phoenix. I'm talking ticket prices in the league overall. Frankly, I'm really only interested in buying ticket for either Detroit or Chicago, since they are the only place I'm ever likely to buy tickets. (And since the cost to driving down, attending the game, eating, and probably staying the night somewhere makes going to one of those two places WAY more money than I'm willing to spend to watch an NHL game.)

My question was not about a particular market, but rather would the league lower prices overall in order to make it up to the fans, or to gain revenue by quantity. I'm not complaining about ticket prices. I think you must have read that into my post. I wouldn't care if prices were double. It would not affect me in the least. It was a statement about how the league sees the cost of player salaries vs the cost of fans going to games.

I'm sorry for phoenix and places like that. Sorry they don't have enough fans who care about hockey enough to actually go out and see a dirt cheap hockey game. They have a very good team and if they can't get people to see those guys play at those prices then that only reinforces my belief that they will never make it work out there.

If they dropped two teams they could make realignment work better. Just a thought.

Detroit has high ticket prices because they sell a ton of tickets and they can afford to cut out the people who can't pay to see a game.

 

[paulster2626]

Ticket prices in the markets you are concerned with are high because that is what people are willing to pay. I'm not sure what your argument is - you are saying that the Leafs/Hawks/Red Wings should lower their ticket prices to make more money? What??? By the way there are already $27 tickets available for the Blackhawks in the nosebleeds. Problem is they're all sold out - maybe they should lower the prices... er, what?

If you care about the NHL as a whole, then you must certainly care about what happens in Phoenix and Tampa (and Florida and New York Island and Dallas and New Jersey and Nashville and Columbus and Colorado and St. Louis and Anaheim and LA and Carolina). There are 30 teams, and they aren't going anywhere. Maybe one or two will eventually be relocated, but that's not happening any time soon.

Also you still haven't explained what the owners could have offered the players as concessions of their own when asking the players to make less money (that was you complaining it's been the players doing all the giving, right?).

 

[Homercidal]

They could give in on contract length, CBA term, Free agency age, all kinds of things that have much less to do with their share of revenue. Not really meaning that owners should give more than they did with the old agreement, only that they should be more willing to work with the players on those "other" items to end the lockout.

In the end it doesn't matter because the owners will still find ways around the CBA to spend too much. They've done it every time. The league has locked out, gotten salary lowered and they still pay too much through signings or extended contracts, etc. It just seems that if they can lower salaries so much they might pass some of that savings on to the fans. I'm more curious than anything, since as I already mentioned, it won't affect me going to a game in the least. Maybe they will just end up putting all of that money they are saving in players salaries to hold up the teams where they can't get the locals to watch.

And I do care about what happens in places where people want to watch hockey. But it makes no sense to prop up a team in a market where nobody wants to watch hockey just because. I might be tempted to make a claim that the league hasn't dropped Phoenix for the simple reason that they need the club to lose money so they can make their point about needing more concessions on players salary. In the end I really don't care if there are 30 teams, or 28, or 24 or whatever. I don't have a specific number in my head that a league is required to have to make it profitable. There are actually places where playoff hockey has been played and when I check their local newspapers online, there is nothing being said on the front page. PLAYOFF HOCKEY! Why is there a team there??

Oh well, I'm better off without NHL hockey anyway. I get more done in the evenings when I'm not bothered with a couple of hours of staring in front of the TV. The season is lost at this point IMO. I remember the last time this happened so very long ago. Kind of felt like a sham season.

So why is hockey in Phoenix such a great thing? I don't see the benefit.

 

[paulster2626]

The players already had unlimited contract length. I can't see how the owners could concede anything on that front. The NHLPA has not asked for lower free-agency age, so no reason to offer that up. In fact, the NHLPA hasn't really asked for anything - what they consider important changes on a weekly basis. First it was the share of HRR, then a de-linked cap, then pensions, then "make whole", now it's contract length, variance, and CBA term. After the NHL gives on those, what's next?

Looking at what the owners want vs. the players, it's obvious what side's wishes will result in more stability going forward. Everyone knew it was the players who'd be doing all the giving here - I think it was just Fehr's job to get the best deal possible and make sure that the League is hesitant to do this again, accomplished by waiting until the last possible second to make a deal (January 1st-ish?) and getting a shorter CBA term.

Phoenix is a different animal altogether. Why they insist on keeping this franchise there, I do not know. But I understand why they fight to keep franchises in markets that are struggling. You just can't go ahead and keep shuffling hockey teams around like a game of musical chairs. It's not fair to the fans, the owners, the sponsors, or the players.

But really - when a team doesn't have an actual owner, the arena they play in is under some strange lease negotiations, and there have been rumours of the team leaving town for the past 4 years while all this crap has been going on, can you really blame people for being disinterested in it? I've been to Phoenix - they actually have some pretty hard-core hockey fans there, and the way they've got the arena set up with surrounding bars and restaurants is second to none. I'd like to see what could happen with a stable ownership running things there.

 

[Homercidal]

If the players already had open-ended contract length, then it seems the ownership would be plenty pleased to get almost any length of contract length. I think the NHLPA has asked for certain things, but since the ownership controls everything, it makes sense that the union would be the ones to start the negotiations on each item. And they can bargain on each item as it comes up.

As far as Phoenix goes, I might commend the bars and stuff nearby, but I don't see how that necessarily makes the team profitable. I think it's time to cut the losses and maybe even trim the league. But I agree that's not likely to happen. Perhaps in a year or so after this CBA Fiasco is finalized and the league gets what it needs out of it, but keeping it after all of these unsuccessful years doesn't make sense. I doubt there is a grand plan coming up that would turn it around for them. If they were a sucky team, I would maybe suggest building a better team, but you and I both have seen how good they are. If people in that area can't appreciate what they have, then there is no hope.

I gotta go. Need to transfer an Autocad license and then pick up my kid. Maybe there will be an announcement of more talks today. I haven't had much time to check the news.

 

[paulster2626]

True dat.

I believe they want 5-year limits because insurance will no longer cover any contracts longer than that. So they're basically taking a huge risk in signing them.

Although, one wonders if something is such a stupid thing to do, why do they keep doing it? And don't say collusion - fiscal responsibility is not collusion.

 

[jtkratzer]

So...about that recent optimism that, like Icarus, went to high and then came crashing down...

 

[rjwhite41]

I would like to commend all of you for keeping this thread going during the lockout. I haven't been around in awhile so maybe you've already discussed this, but how the hell can Bettman keep his f'n job after yet another disastrous labor negotiation? Worst commish of all time.

 

[schmoe]

I would like to commend all of you for keeping this thread going during the lockout. I haven't been around in awhile so maybe you've already discussed this, but how the hell can Bettman keep his f'n job after yet another disastrous labor negotiation? Worst commish of all time.

Because he gets the owners money in the long run.

 

[jtkratzer]

Because he gets the owners money in the long run.

I would think the commissioner would be someone who would work with both sides for the good of the game and their relationship, not take sides, but then again, I don't know his job description specifics.

 

[emjay]

I would think the commissioner would be someone who would work with both sides for the good of the game and their relationship, not take sides, but then again, I don't know his job description specifics.

His job is to make the league as successful as possible. In order to do that, teams need to be successful. Pandering to players really doesn't accomplish anything in that regard.

 

[jtkratzer]

His job is to make the league as successful as possible. In order to do that, teams need to be successful. Pandering to players really doesn't accomplish anything in that regard.

And pandering to owners and locking the players out are equally ineffective at promoting a healthy, successful league.

 

[emjay]

And pandering to owners and locking the players out are equally ineffective at promoting a healthy, successful league.

Not necessarily. If the owners and the league see it as necessary to fight the players on this instead of just giving in, then he would certainly be working towards a successful league. I mean, nobody's clairvoyant, so it does ultimately come down to opinions, but implying that the league bending over to avoid a lockout at all costs is the only way to make it successful is a bit ridiculous. If he thinks he's doing what is right, then he's doing his job as best he can.

Don't get me wrong, I hate Bettman for many things, but saying that it's his job to give in whenever there's a chance of a lockout is pretty absurd.

 

[dudius]

Not necessarily. If the owners and the league see it as necessary to fight the players on this instead of just giving in, then he would certainly be working towards a successful league. I mean, nobody's clairvoyant, so it does ultimately come down to opinions, but implying that the league bending over to avoid a lockout at all costs is the only way to make it successful is a bit ridiculous. If he thinks he's doing what is right, then he's doing his job as best he can.

Don't get me wrong, I hate Bettman for many things, but saying that it's his job to give in whenever there's a chance of a lockout is pretty absurd.

Exactly because appeasement creates bad things. People are made because they think the leagues lock out the players to get what they want. But if the leagues gave the players everything they wanted then the players would be the ones always asking for more. Its a two way street, and you can guess why negotiations are going so well.

 

[jtkratzer]

Not necessarily. If the owners and the league see it as necessary to fight the players on this instead of just giving in, then he would certainly be working towards a successful league. I mean, nobody's clairvoyant, so it does ultimately come down to opinions, but implying that the league bending over to avoid a lockout at all costs is the only way to make it successful is a bit ridiculous. If he thinks he's doing what is right, then he's doing his job as best he can.

Don't get me wrong, I hate Bettman for many things, but saying that it's his job to give in whenever there's a chance of a lockout is pretty absurd.

I'm pretty sure that is not at all what I said. I was countering your point. I never said give in, bend over, give the players everything they ask for.

But they took from the players last time around and had record attendance and revenue and want to take more again this time.

There's no compromise, on either side. Owners need to realize there are other leagues and players will go elsewhere if they can't play in the NHL.

Exactly because appeasement creates bad things. People are made because they think the leagues lock out the players to get what they want. But if the leagues gave the players everything they wanted then the players would be the ones always asking for more. Its a two way street, and you can guess why negotiations are going so well.

Uh, let's take a sec to look at this - it's a lockout, not a hold out or boycott or strike. This isn't about player demands and the owners saying no, this is a case where the owners want to take more money from the players, reduce rights, extend entry level contract and RFA length, and shorten contract lengths...this is not about player demands, it's about owners wanting more and the players aren't agreeing to it.

Both sides are at fault here, but I think far more responsibility falls on the owners based on the severity of their demands and the reductions they expect the players to accept.

 

[Boleslaus]

As much as it sucks that the NHL is still locked out this far into the season, I think for those of us who are true fans of the game, at least for me, its made me realize how much hockey means to me as a game. I've played hockey without a single season off since I was 4 and I think I've had one of the most fun seasons so far this year.

 

[dudius]

Uh, let's take a sec to look at this - it's a lockout, not a hold out or boycott or strike. This isn't about player demands and the owners saying no, this is a case where the owners want to take more money from the players, reduce rights, extend entry level contract and RFA length, and shorten contract lengths...this is not about player demands, it's about owners wanting more and the players aren't agreeing to it.

Both sides are at fault here, but I think far more responsibility falls on the owners based on the severity of their demands and the reductions they expect the players to accept.

Sorry I was just playing devil's advocate. I believe the NHL is in the wrong and they try to pin it on the players and a lot of people are like "they make enough money they shouldn't worry about cutting back."

 

[paulster2626]

I'm pretty sure that is not at all what I said. I was countering your point. I never said give in, bend over, give the players everything they ask for.

But they took from the players last time around and had record attendance and revenue and want to take more again this time.

There's no compromise, on either side. Owners need to realize there are other leagues and players will go elsewhere if they can't play in the NHL.



Uh, let's take a sec to look at this - it's a lockout, not a hold out or boycott or strike. This isn't about player demands and the owners saying no, this is a case where the owners want to take more money from the players, reduce rights, extend entry level contract and RFA length, and shorten contract lengths...this is not about player demands, it's about owners wanting more and the players aren't agreeing to it.

Both sides are at fault here, but I think far more responsibility falls on the owners based on the severity of their demands and the reductions they expect the players to accept.

The owners wanted to create a partnership with the PA a long time ago. Bettman was working with Paul Kelly well before the CBA was close to expiring, and the PA saw this as an act of weakness and organized a late-night coup to get rid of him (he was fired at 2am).

Then, they bring in Donald Fehr. This is a guy with a track record of work stoppages, and has said time and again he is 100% opposed to salary caps. He was brought in not to work with the League and create harmony, but to start a war.

Bettman and the League offered to begin negotiations waaaaaaay back in January of 2012, the PA said no. Bettman wanted to begin working on a new CBA near the end of the season, the PA said no. Bettman wanted to get going on a new CBA early in the summer - PA said no. So the NHL concocts some asinine proposal to get things started, and the PA says "this is insane" and then takes an entire month to counter. Funny thing is the proposal was a complete reversal to what the owners/player split was during the last CBA.

Anyway, if the League had just continued to play, the players would hold all the leverage as they'd be able to strike whenever they wanted. Donald Fehr has a reputation for work disruption, and this would have been no different.

One side has been dragging its feet and unwilling to cooperate, and it's the NHLPA. The owners list of demands is high, but the unwillingness of the PA to work off of their requests is what has cost us 1/2 a season and created such animosity in the boardroom. At least, that's how I see it.

Either way I think every single person involved in this can suck a big one. This shouldn't be so difficult to sort out.

 

[paulster2626]

Here's an interesting article explaining a bit of what I'm talking about.

You could argue, and some would, that the genesis of the current impasse between the NHL and the NHL Players’ Association lies in the deals signed by the NBA and NFL over the past year.

Once those leagues arrived at approximately a 50-50 split of league revenues, well, you knew the NHL would be bound and determined to get the same thing.

But there’s a more telling moment, and event, to reach back to when you really want to focus on why we are where we are in this hockey mess.

Try Aug. 31, 2009.

That was the day, or in the early hours of that day before dawn, that Paul Kelly, then executive director of the NHLPA, was given the shiv after less than two years on the job.

Why? Well, it was a coup orchestrated behind the scenes by union lawyer Ian Penny and ex-ombudsman Eric Lindros, and carried out in public by players like Andrew Ference, Matt Stajan and others.

Driving the coup, along with personal rivalries, was the suggestion that Kelly, despite his impressive record as a U.S. attorney, wasn’t tough enough and wasn’t experienced enough as a negotiator to take on the NHL and Gary Bettman.

What he had done was establish a cordial working relationship with Bettman. He’d even been invited to speak to the owners at a meeting in Pebble Beach, and that didn’t sit right with some.

Ultimately, a report was done on this shameful episode in NHLPA history, a report that has never seen the light of day or been made public.

Kelly’s dismissal set in motion a series of events.

First, former baseball union head Don Fehr, who was on the phone with members of the coup later in the same day that Kelly was fired, became a consultant for the NHLPA. He’d been denied a spot on the advisory committee on Kelly’s recommendation several months earlier.

Fehr advised the union on how it needed to build a new infrastructure and then in December 2010, 16 months after Kelly had been fired, took over as executive director.

From that point until last month, a period of 20 months, Fehr declined to engage in any serious collective bargaining, and for much of the time he rejected NHL overtures, saying he was still learning the business.

On Thursday, he walked into a significant meeting with several NHL owners 90 minutes late, plopped down two single sheets of paper, each with a different skeleton proposal to the owners that didn’t include any ideas on systemic issues, then verbally delivered a third proposal with no accompanying paperwork. For all three proposals, he acknowledged to the owners he hadn’t actually “run the numbers.”

This from the leader of a union in a $3 billion business.

Fehr, despite being asked, has never revealed what was in the Kelly Report or what his involvement was in the sacking of his predecessor.

The intriguing question, more than three years after Kelly’s dismissal, is whether this entire episode in NHL-NHLPA bargaining would have unfolded differently had Kelly remained as executive director.

Retired journalist Russ Conway, who was honoured by the Hockey Hall of Fame in 1999, largely for his investigative work into union mismanagement under Alan Eagleson that ultimately landed the former NHLPA boss in jail, said at a minimum Kelly would have started negotiating with the NHL much earlier.

“Perhaps as early as July 2011,” said Conway, regarded as an expert on NHL-NHLPA relations. “They had a relationship building. The knock on him was that he was too soft, but he was a masterful negotiator. You don’t do all those plea agreements and fight all those cases for the Justice department without being a good negotiator.”

With Fehr in charge, Conway sees similarities with the dynamics of the union during the Eagleson years.

“For years, the players wouldn’t ask Eagleson the tough questions,” he said. “Tell me, is Sidney Crosby asking Fehr tough questions?”

At the time of his dismissal, Kelly was fully informed on all union issues, had a working relationship with key league personnel and had already spearheaded mid-term modifications to an international rights agreement for the NHL and NHLPA. His right-hand man was former NHL goalie Glenn Healy.

Fehr took months to get up to speed, and then engaged his brother Steve as outside counsel to help in the negotiations. Neither Fehr brother had any experience in hockey.

The delays that accompanied Don Fehr’s acclimatization to the job helped push the current negotiations into this fall.

Maybe Kelly, had he stayed, would have run into a stone wall and been frustrated by yet another round of heavy concessions demanded by the NHL. But more would have been done long before the Sept. 15 deadline, long before players started missing paycheques.

The players deserved better. Dumping Kelly just put them way behind. Now, they’re paying the price.

Now you tell me a significant part of the blame for this mess of a season doesn't lie on the shoulders of the Players and Donald Fehr.

 

[jtkratzer]

The owners wanted to create a partnership with the PA a long time ago. Bettman was working with Paul Kelly well before the CBA was close to expiring, and the PA saw this as an act of weakness and organized a late-night coup to get rid of him (he was fired at 2am).

Then, they bring in Donald Fehr. This is a guy with a track record of work stoppages, and has said time and again he is 100% opposed to salary caps. He was brought in not to work with the League and create harmony, but to start a war.

Bettman and the League offered to begin negotiations waaaaaaay back in January of 2012, the PA said no. Bettman wanted to begin working on a new CBA near the end of the season, the PA said no. Bettman wanted to get going on a new CBA early in the summer - PA said no. So the NHL concocts some asinine proposal to get things started, and the PA says "this is insane" and then takes an entire month to counter. Funny thing is the proposal was a complete reversal to what the owners/player split was during the last CBA.

Anyway, if the League had just continued to play, the players would hold all the leverage as they'd be able to strike whenever they wanted. Donald Fehr has a reputation for work disruption, and this would have been no different.

One side has been dragging its feet and unwilling to cooperate, and it's the NHLPA. The owners list of demands is high, but the unwillingness of the PA to work off of their requests is what has cost us 1/2 a season and created such animosity in the boardroom. At least, that's how I see it.

Either way I think every single person involved in this can suck a big one. This shouldn't be so difficult to sort out.

I'm not suggesting they should play without a contract. I just see what you say about Fehr as similar if not the same about Bettman. Three work stoppages during his career? I believe all three have been because of the recessions and reductions in pay/rights he's trying to get the players to accept.

Sure, the NHLPA has drug their feet, but the league at times has played hardball and refused to meet unless certain conditions are met or certain aspects of the proposal are off the table for discussion.

This is entirely a two way street, but the one consistency is that the league, owners, and Bettman are always demanding the players accept less than they previously had. There has been nothing beneficial to the players proposed in return for the concessions they're continuously asked to make. There's been no compromise.

The players can play elsewhere. The owners don't have a league, at least with the revenue they've seen in the past, without top tier players. Sure, people are still paying to see AHL and ECHL games, but the revenue certainly isn't anywhere near the level of the NHL.

Both sides really need each other. The income the players get, across the league, as an average, is not available anywhere else in the world, and the money the owners want to make will only exist if they have the top (mostly) talent.

There needs to be an indifferent, objective, unbiased person who is the liaison between the two sides. Each side appointing a spokesperson, ie Bettman and Fehr isn't working out. Both have the interest of their own side more than the game itself. Might be impossible to find such a person unless his/her salary is split evenly by the two organizations.

The current mess is like an agent fighting for pay and years on the contract for his players against the GM/owner of the team. The problem is that both sides appear to be standoffish enough that the goal isn't to play, but to see how far they can screw the other side. There is a lot of talk about desire to get a deal done to save the season, save the game, but not enough action and real compromise to make it happen.

It's no different than the political mess in the US right now over just about everything. Lots of talk, smoke and mirrors, huffing and puffing, but both sides are standing their ground.

I could see, if I were a player, taking less than 50% of all hockey revenue since I don't have the risk of financial loss, taxes, liability, etc that the ownership has with the team, the buildings, etc...but I also want to make as much (within reason) as possible. This is where a disinterested person needs to make liaison between the two sides and pull things together, to help each side see the other's point of view, because right now, we have nothing but two sides playing the "I want what I want and I'm not going to be happy unless I get it" game and you can see where that has us.

I'll add, after reading the article, that I can see how the league is making ridiculous demands due to the inexperience of Fehr when it comes to hockey. I also see how Fehr is in a tough spot that if Kelly was viewed as soft, and Fehr wants to keep his job, he at least needs to put on a front of being a tough negotiator.

The situation sucks all around. Both sides are playing the pissing contest.

 

[paulster2626]

The problem is the League has too many teams losing money. They have nothing TO give the players in exchange for a smaller share of revenue and a tighter control on spending. What COULD they give? Please, someone answer this question. They've explained their plight with rising expenses not matching incoming dollars, and have also explained the issues regarding insuring long-term contracts. I honestly do believe they are trying to fix the League and create something that can be healthy for a majority of the 30 teams. For whatever reason the players remain steadfast in their refusal to give up something that affects 60 players (contracts longer than 6 years), and want to fight to salvage 10% or so of salary while losing 20%.

I keep hearing that they need to have a partnership - well they tried creating a partnership with the PA and it was refused. The PA has no interest in partnering with anyone. They've had the NHL's financial statements for a long time now, and have never disputed their claims of financial distress. Instead they just keep demanding more, more, more, and don't realize that the pile in which they're getting paid from won't exist for many if current trends continue.

The greed and unwillingness of the players to work towards a solution in all of this is disheartening. Fehr is the worst thing to happen to pro hockey players, ever.

 

[jtkratzer]

Again, I disagree. It sounds like you are laying a lot of blame on the players here. They're fighting to keep what they have left after the last two lockouts. They're not asking for more. They're not asking for 70/30 split, they're demanding to keep what they have.

I have a problem with the league demanding the players take less to fix their mistakes of putting hockey where it doesn't belong, hasn't succeeded, and won't succeed. Look at the ratings when Edmonton and Carolina were in the finals or when Tampa won compared to the Flyers and Hawks a few years ago.

I have a problem with the financial crisis the league has put itself in with these contracts, all the way up to the waning hours of the last CBA only to gripe and complain about those same contracts.

There are two sides here and the one side shouldn't be forced to make concessions because of the mistakes of the other side. The one side shouldn't be responsible for taking a cut in pay and rights to put a temporary band-aid on a problem that won't be fixed by the players making less money.

Reduced player salaries, longer RFA contracts, less arbitration, etc aren't going to sell more tickets, vending products, hats, etc.

The problem exists because the league continues to ram hockey down the throats of markets where as much as some people want it, not enough do to support it. Two failed Atlanta franchises, multiple in California, and even in Canada. The league needs to realize it's never going to compete with any of the other three major sports leagues in North America and stop forcing the players to finance their failed experiments.

 

[paulster2626]

Again, I disagree. It sounds like you are laying a lot of blame on the players here. They're fighting to keep what they have left after the last two lockouts. They're not asking for more. They're not asking for 70/30 split, they're demanding to keep what they have.

By keeping what they have, the League says it cannot afford to exist. That is the problem.

The problem exists because the league continues to ram hockey down the throats of markets where as much as some people want it, not enough do to support it. Two failed Atlanta franchises, multiple in California, and even in Canada. The league needs to realize it's never going to compete with any of the other three major sports leagues in North America and stop forcing the players to finance their failed experiments.

So contraction is the answer? Relocate franchises to whatever flavour-of-the-month city seems fit? Man the players hate this just as much as the owners.

No, the PA asked for more revenue sharing. A lot more. And the owners capitulated. But it was still not enough.... but hey, they just "want to play", right?

By the way, solid work by Shea Weber signing that ridiculous deal from insane Philly owner Snider and holding Nashville hostage. Him and his agent really had the health of the League involved in that one, eh? Or does the onus rely solely on the shoulders of the owners here? Sure - maybe the players do have zero responsibility when it comes to the health of the entire League. Maybe it's all the responsibility of the owners. But that means they get to write the rules.

If what the NHL says is true, then the money just isn't there to keep paying these guys what they're getting. No amount of refusing to negotiate or disclaimers of interest are going to fix that, and it's a losing battle.

 

[jtkratzer]

By keeping what they have, the League says it cannot afford to exist. That is the problem.

And who started those franchises? Who built the areans? Who did the paperwork and went through the process to get a team? Certainly wasn't the players.

So contraction is the answer? Relocate franchises to whatever flavour-of-the-month city seems fit? Man the players hate this just as much as the owners.

Uh, yeah. Simple. Eliminate the teams that can't fend for themselves. If you don't have a product that's capable of making a profit, or at least breaking even, then that product should come off the shelf, not be subsidized by those who are doing a good job of putting a product on the ice and marketing it well enough to make a profit.

You know what? I bet they hate not playing and consistent lockouts and being told they have to pay the way of the failing teams more than relocating. Lots of people move across country to make more money at a better job. My dad did it 5 times. I lived in 5 states before I was 12 (no, he's not military). You make new friends and learn your way around a new town. Life goes on. I'd rather move and improve the finances with a better job with better take home pay than stick around with no chance of improvement.

This is worse than corporate welfare from the government - make your competitors pay your bills when you're in the red. It's genius if you're the recipient, but it's ludicrous to expect teams who are competing against each other for talent, championships, viewers, fans to buy their swag, etc to pay the way of those who can't manage on their own.

By the way, solid work by Shea Weber signing that ridiculous deal from insane Philly owner Snider and holding Nashville hostage.

Philly has the money and the market to make a profit by paying him that contract. Nashville had every chance not to match. That's on them. The rules of the CBA are what they are and Philly didn't do anything that wasn't allowed by the rules.

Too many teams aim for the salary floor and then complain when they don't draw crowds, or turn profits, or win anything, or say they can't afford to pay the contracts that wealthier teams can.

Who's fault is that? This is sounding more and more like a debate on wealth distrubition in society than it is a hockey debate. I am inherently guilty or at fault that my neighbor isn't as financially well of as I am simply because I am more well off? Did my success take from his pocket? Should I be obligated to pay his way? Sounds crazy when you start thinking of it that way, especially if his failure and financial crisis are due to mismanagement or living beyond his means. It was easy for Nashville to match that contract when they'll collect their subsidy of hockey revenue from the other teams.

This is a lengthy article, but it goes to show how much aid in state and local tax dollars, tax incentives, tax breaks, league revenue sharing, etc the Preds get and they still can't turn a profit.
http://www.tennessean.com/article/2...le-Predators-despite-ice-success-public-money

Even with the success on the ice and having had top tier talent on their roster, they're just not financially or fiscally successful. Why do we continue to bail water out of a sinking ship?

Profitability and sustainability of the league is the whole point of renegotiating the CBA, right? If I'm a player or union official, I demand the health of game be the number one priority and the teams that can't fend for themselves are closed up. Sucks, people lose jobs and it's way more involved than the players and team staff/management, as explained in the article about the revenue created by the fans around the arena, but bad/failing/faltering businesses should not be sustained by making someone else pay for it without fixing the true problem at hand - the failing teams.

Him and his agent really had the health of the League involved in that one, eh? Or does the onus rely solely on the shoulders of the owners here? Sure - maybe the players do have zero responsibility when it comes to the health of the entire League. Maybe it's all the responsibility of the owners. But that means they get to write the rules.

If the owners have an issue with the contract length or dollar amount, they should be the first ones to stop offering them. But since the rules allow them, if they want a player, they're going to have to offer a sufficiently attractive enough contract to draw that player to their team, and if they don't do it, another GM will.

Sure, if they get to write the rules, then they compete on a level playing field against all the other leagues around the planet and the players go where the money is.

If what the NHL says is true, then the money just isn't there to keep paying these guys what they're getting. No amount of refusing to negotiate or disclaimers of interest are going to fix that, and it's a losing battle.

And that's the wrong focus. It's not about paying the players. It's about paying the red ink on the failing franchises. The players play the game. They are the on ice product that draws the fans in and the central piece in the game of NHL Jenga. Without them, or sufficiently talented players to replace them, the house of cards comes crashing down.

The players cannot make people watch at home, or buy hot dogs and jerseys. The players are not the marketing department. They don't develop or execute the advertising or budgets. The players are responsible for their play on the ice and their image/likeability to the fans. When teams are established where no amount of success or marketing is going to turn a profit, like what Nashville and Phoenix are dealing with, those teams need to close up shop or move.

It's the only solution to a chronic and terminal problem the league is always going to face and until they face reality that these failing teams have to go or change their business models, they're always going to look to take from the players and the successful teams.

The NHL = Barack Obama of the sports world. If you're successful, you will pay the way of those who are less successful. If you don't like, f**k off.

 

[arturo7]

There are teams struggling to stay afloat and the players want more money.

**** those guys. When it gets right down to it they're just a bunch of modern-day circus freaks.

 

[jtkratzer]

There are teams struggling to stay afloat and the players want more money.

**** those guys. When it gets right down to it they're just a bunch of modern-day circus freaks.

And the league and owners who think the players should take less to pay the red ink on failing franchises are idiotic socialists.

Manage your team, assets, and finances properly while putting a competitive product on the ice that you successfully market and you won't be in the red.

 

[Homercidal]

There are teams struggling to stay afloat and the players want more money.

**** those guys. When it gets right down to it they're just a bunch of modern-day circus freaks.

Not true. There are teams who poorly manage their salaries AND other expenses and struggle to stay afloat.

They are the same teams who offer players more money than they can afford to pay.

Last time I checked, a team never had to pay more than they offered and agreed to pay a player. They have every right to NOT pay that player their demanded salary.

 

[paulster2626]

Not true. There are teams who poorly manage their salaries AND other expenses and struggle to stay afloat.

They are the same teams who offer players more money than they can afford to pay.

Last time I checked, a team never had to pay more than they offered and agreed to pay a player. They have every right to NOT pay that player their demanded salary.

Which teams? How would you even know this?

I guess you haven't checked to see if there is a cap floor or not. They are forced to offer certain amounts of revenue %.

System is broken, owners are trying to fix it, players want status quo.

 

[jtkratzer]

Which teams? How would you even know this?

I guess you haven't checked to see if there is a cap floor or not. They are forced to offer certain amounts of revenue %.

System is broken, owners are trying to fix it, players want status quo.

I'm not a fan of the cap floor, however, there are plenty of players out there worth the salaries they command to put a roster together to meet the cap floor. The problem is, players want to playe where they can win. And if a team is not committed to putting sufficient talent on the ice to win, why wouldn anyone other than guys who want to stay in the league and can't get jobs elsewhere want to go there?

There are plenty of franchises that are boat anchored by terrible contracts and mismanagement and lack of commitment to winning. If I were an elite player or even a top 25% player, I wouldn't want to go there. Those teams are rebuilt through the draft process like Pittsburgh was (whether or not you think it was an inside job on their draft lottery where they got a slew of elite players is besides the point). They're an example of how the draft system is built to fix poor teams. However, if those teams can't afford or aren't willing to pay the players once those RFA and entry level contracts are up, then they leave and the teams fall back to mediocrity only to repeat the process.

How long will Stamkos stay in Tampa or any of the wonder boys that Edmonton has drafted over the last few years stick around?

I see both sides of the story here, but until the league addresses the root cause of the financial problems - putting teams where they can't succeed financially, along with player and team mismanagment, no amount of salary or contract term reduction will fix the red ink.

I have no problem with the players feeling entitled to a percentage of hockey revenue vs a hard, fixed number. The right balance and percentages needs to be worked out for the teams to be profitable or at least break even, but that is simply not possible with an alarming number of franchises.

Until that is addressed, I'm not really in the league's corner on much of anything.

Just like the auto bailout - Pontiac is gone, Hummer is gone, etc. The cancers and parasites on the financial health of the league must be cut off. No amount of success or CBA negotiation is going to fix things like the contracts the Islanders offered Alexi Yashin or Rick DiPietro. You can't fix stupid.

 

[paulster2626]

The PA has said none of this though. So really there is no evidence of what you're saying to be true.

The PA has said that an increased revenue sharing model would be the solution. That was what they wanted the League to concede, and they did. The NHL has proposed to go from $150 million all the way up to $220 million (I think that's what the last offer had, can't remember). The PA wants $260 million.

It seems you are pinning the current financial issues on the League's expansion in to southern markets - the NHLPA was just as much on board with this as the NHL, and yet you feel they should not have to share in fixing it.

Also I haven't heard the PA say that teams lose money because they are so grossly mismanaged - they have had access to the financial statements for a long time now - if this were true, it would be a damn good point to bring up rather than just stomping their feet and saying "NO".