Holy crap someone else figured it out!?

This is something I've been spewing on deaf ears. I try to reason with the pro-owner side in that some of their aren't necessarily wrong, but they don't fix the grand issue. At least Fehr is addressing this issue for that exact reason.

People keep talking about the PA like "you're losing money right now! A lot! you should settle! it's about right now! But you guys aren't thinking about the future! but you should settle right now!" Crazy enough I think Fehr is thinking about nothing but the future/future players. No hidden agendas, no personal vendetta's either. These lockouts have to end. This league needs to be stable and locking out players and taking their money does nothing the end this cycle.
- Boosinicka

The only thing that is important to both sides is the future. That is, future growth. Lockouts stunt growth. Players gave big concession last time and their salaries exploded because of growth. The concessions this time are minor compared to last time so the salaries will continue to explode because of growth.
Players are like every other group of humans, there are smart ones and dumb ones. Why haven't the smart ones told the dumb ones that 57/43, 50/50 etc are just numbers on paper as long as what is in your checking account keeps growing? Everyone's checking account will be more than it was the day before if they play hockey and put an end to these "pissing us off" lockouts. Sign the frickin' deal!

1. imo, it's the players alone who are concentrating and bargaining on the last CBA. it seems like they almost solely have retribution and principle in mind because of how badly their tactics backfired on them last time. it's been the biggest obstacle to getting a deal done
2. i think fehr has pledged to not get paid while the lockout continues..just sayin
3. other than the very first point (1) and the very last (2), i couldnt agree more. good post
- hugefemale dog77

Yeah I agree with you, which is why it probably sounded like I was bagging the players, they are the one's to wound up with the old CBA. I also read Fehr is not getting paid, but I can guarantee you when it is all over, he will do very well out of it, he is not doing it for free.

I think we are all Hockey fans and want hockey, sucks hey, but the players are deluding themsevles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Bolles
Read the whole entry. Notice near the end, Emprise->Sportservice->Delaware North Companies, figure out the owner. Yea, this guy plays hardball

If there is a season it is going to be a sham, and in most places south of the 49th attendance will be brutal.

The NHL needs to relaunch next year or the year after with a better product (necessary rules changes aren't even part of the current discussion ) AND more family-friendly pricing - and after a long shutdown the league will have to offer cheaper tickets - I know they did in several places after the last lockout.

You are right, it really is not tough to figure out how the players got so much money from this past CBA and how it killed the profitsof a lot of teams. I have to admit that until I saw this first mentioned a couple weeks ago, I had never really thought of it.

I am not sure what the best solution is though...

Get out of the bad markets maybe?
- Aetherial

As you get out of bad markets (whether by contraction or relocation), the average revenue-per-team moves up. That puts even more pressure on the remaining bad-market teams, because the cap and floor get pushed upward in the process. Then what, move/contract those teams as well? If you go contraction, you probably end up with about 16 stable teams in the end; if you go with relocation, you start playing musical chairs depending on economics and at some point state/local governments will quit helping when they realize they're not recouping the money invested. (I'll let everyone else figure out if that's a good thing or not.)

My solution: limit the amount of revenue from those top-10 teams at 102.5 - 105% of the revenues of the #11 team when calculating the salary cap. This still recognizes some of the revenue growth from the top teams, but puts less weight on it and more on the lower-revenue teams who will now more directly drive the floor and cap. It will also put player salaries more on part with HRR and limit escrow from them.

Revenue sharing is probably still going to be needed (and that's not a bad thing), and contract limits are still unnecessary. You can open up the spread between the cap and floor to $20 million if you want, I'm fine with that. By capping revenues for the top-10 teams, though, you instantly take care of the biggest problem from the 2005 CBA: the fact that high-revenue teams grow faster than low-revenue teams, and so the way the cap system is set up it's inevitable that they'll push the cap and floor higher than low-revenue teams can afford and still have a chance to turn a profit.

I see the NHL world differently. It is a business plain and simple. Owners offer a contract to players...the players make their decision to sign or not...if they sign then they are sure to get paid over the life of the contract...the player should NOT be looking for any of the owner's revenue regardless of the source. In the real world, if a company is failing, they simple cease to exist, they close up shop. In the NHL, if a team is losing money, then they should close up shop. Other owners should NOT have to subsidize the businesses that are failing for whatever reason. Summing up, players should play and shut the hell up...owners should honor their contractual commitments to the players and learn how to run a business without losing money. At the end of the day there is a reason why they are called owners and players....

The only thing that is important to both sides is the future. That is, future growth. Lockouts stunt growth. Players gave big concession last time and their salaries exploded because of growth. The concessions this time are minor compared to last time so the salaries will continue to explode because of growth.
Players are like every other group of humans, there are smart ones and dumb ones. Why haven't the smart ones told the dumb ones that 57/43, 50/50 etc are just numbers on paper as long as what is in your checking account keeps growing? Everyone's checking account will be more than it was the day before if they play hockey and put an end to these "pissing us off" lockouts. Sign the frickin' deal!
- R4Z0R

Great post...absolutely agree.

As you get out of bad markets (whether by contraction or relocation), the average revenue-per-team moves up. That puts even more pressure on the remaining bad-market teams, because the cap and floor get pushed upward in the process. Then what, move/contract those teams as well? If you go contraction, you probably end up with about 16 stable teams in the end; if you go with relocation, you start playing musical chairs depending on economics and at some point state/local governments will quit helping when they realize they're not recouping the money invested. (I'll let everyone else figure out if that's a good thing or not.)

My solution: limit the amount of revenue from those top-10 teams at 102.5 - 105% of the revenues of the #11 team when calculating the salary cap. This still recognizes some of the revenue growth from the top teams, but puts less weight on it and more on the lower-revenue teams who will now more directly drive the floor and cap. It will also put player salaries more on part with HRR and limit escrow from them.

Revenue sharing is probably still going to be needed (and that's not a bad thing), and contract limits are still unnecessary. You can open up the spread between the cap and floor to $20 million if you want, I'm fine with that. By capping revenues for the top-10 teams, though, you instantly take care of the biggest problem from the 2005 CBA: the fact that high-revenue teams grow faster than low-revenue teams, and so the way the cap system is set up it's inevitable that they'll push the cap and floor higher than low-revenue teams can afford and still have a chance to turn a profit.
- Irish Blues

Love your idea, and it would probably work. Sadly though Fehr would just convince the players that it is just another trick by the NHL to take money out of thier pockets, and it would be shot down immediately.

If there is a season it is going to be a sham, and in most places south of the 49th attendance will be brutal.

The NHL needs to relaunch next year or the year after with a better product (necessary rules changes aren't even part of the current discussion ) AND more family-friendly pricing - and after a long shutdown the league will have to offer cheaper tickets - I know they did in several places after the last lockout.
- Losman

maybe a few minor tweaks could be made to the rules, but overrall the products is a good as its been in 20 years.
also, the weaker teams that you speak of already have family friendly, extremely cheap tickets.
its the booming and canadian franchises that have disgusting prices.
why would they lower prices when they're selling out? makes no sense.
stop going to the games and they'll lower prices. u might see it for a brief stint upon return. but it'll go back up asap.

Wow, your brilliant business plan should solve the lockout within days.

maybe a few minor tweaks could be made to the rules, but overrall the products is a good as its been in 20 years.
also, the weaker teams that you speak of already have family friendly, extremely cheap tickets.
its the booming and canadian franchises that have disgusting prices.
why would they lower prices when they're selling out? makes no sense.
stop going to the games and they'll lower prices. u might see it for a brief stint upon return. but it'll go back up asap.
- hugefemale dog77

Yeah - the suits and their customers that fill up the lower bowl at ACC could care less about family pricing. They can write off their corporate seasons tickets anyway. Supply and demand rules the day. You can/have to rely on low prices in those markets where the demand is weak.

Common sense left town along time ago. This is an irrepairable relationship. I'm very near throwing in the towel on the nhl. If they cant solve this very solvable dispute by Xmas, it never will be. Let the nhl die and start annew.

If there is a season it is going to be a sham, and in most places south of the 49th attendance will be brutal.

The NHL needs to relaunch next year or the year after with a better product (necessary rules changes aren't even part of the current discussion ) AND more family-friendly pricing - and after a long shutdown the league will have to offer cheaper tickets - I know they did in several places after the last lockout.
- Losman

Never happen. That would mean they lose money. They just lost another years worth of revenues. Saying teams like Florida or Phoenix as examples wouldn't work as they just do that to sell tickets, and not to give back to the fans. Maybe some teams will try what the Leafs did and put together a "free" game in the preseason. (frank)ing terrible idea. They brand this Coke Zero Fans First game as a chance to say thanks to them for sticking through with them. THen they go and ice a team with 3 or 4 regulars in the line up (insert joke here). The teams that can afford to lower prices would never do it because they are way too happy making a poop load of money..not to mention they not only have to pay their team but pick up the slack for the lower tier ones.

Symba007 has been one that I think is dead on during this whole thing.. Eck I love your enthusiasm and forever willing to be optomist but its over.. Both sides egos are so huge neither will "give in" at this point. It is all about stubborness and the huge ego
- Popcorn Kid

Bump for weirdoh

Bump for weirdoh
- Symba007

364 more days to go.

364 more days to go.
- weirdoh

Symba007 has been one that I think is dead on during this whole thing.
#getusedtoit #longyear

your avatar!

Palmateer?
- puckhead17

yes

1. imo, it's the players alone who are concentrating and bargaining on the last CBA.
- hugefemale dog77

Here is the best part...

The players keep telling everyone how they have "given" from 57% to 50%... nevermind that the 57% is the OLD CBA. Done. Gone. Over.

BUT...

The players are NOW also saying that they have "given" in on salary cap linked to HRR instead of dollar amounts... which is something they never had in the last CBA.

So basically, they just refer to the last CBA when it is convenient for their argument.

So, if that isn't F'd up enough...

They have NOT given to 50%. They have asked for a softer landing than the NBA or NFL... and they may never get to 50%, especially since they propose 5 years.

AND...

Their cap based on % of HRR is NOT TRUE...the minimum cap they threw in there kicks in if revenues drop only 1.5%, which is pretty damn certain. They also are guaranteed to not have a decrease in salary year over year.

So yeah basically they are saying they are "giving" on the %HRR, but they aren't even being fully honest about it.

My solution: limit the amount of revenue from those top-10 teams at 102.5 - 105% of the revenues of the #11 team when calculating the salary cap. This still recognizes some of the revenue growth from the top teams, but puts less weight on it and more on the lower-revenue teams who will now more directly drive the floor and cap. It will also put player salaries more on part with HRR and limit escrow from them.

- Irish Blues

I like it.

The players will NEVER go for it. They already are only 'sort of' agreeing to 50/50 but if you lower the amount of revenue considered by the top 10 teams, that becomes 50/50 of a lower pie and also a lower floor to hit.

So yeah, I think it is a great idea, but won't fly.

Where did you hear that? From Fehr.

As long as he insists on the potential delinkage (potential meaning absolutely 100% for sure). Then it's not even close to that, and you know that.

If it's only 182 million. That's about 52k per player over he same 5 years.

Do you think if the PA members had a vote to give up another 52k each and its game on. That they wouldn't go for it?
- steveb12344

Nope, didn't come from Fehr. And yes it is exactly that. That is the exact difference in make whole between the League and the PA.

I think the players would not agree to give up another 52K each if they don't get some concessions on contract issues to go along with it.

Its funny you know.

They players profit every year they play. Guaranteed contracts, so what they get after every season (regardless of rollbacks) is a set profit from their work.

They are asking some of the owners who are giving them these profits to take operating losses to the point where they do not profit at all, and in fact lose money. Stupidly some of those owners let their GM's sign contracts that their business model cannot maintain.

The bad thing for the owners is one of the owners who is not crying poor, just got a $20M dollar home back in Canada, not a good look for the league trying to say it is losing money.

So wanting (what about 5-8) teams to pay up a player a profit (or a shareholder) when they are operating at a loss is just not smart business sense. This is a business now, no questioning this, the players are now employees in a business. They are either going to get paid less or lose jobs, because the next step is to close down 4-6 branches of the NHL and have the coal miners lose their jobs.

So when you hear a couple of dissidents cry out 'this is only for the top end' they realise they are being ignored in amongst all of this garbage.

Plus we know the NHL is extremely reluctant to relocate these franchises.

That was a little disjointed by my basic points are:

A business with this many 'broken' parts either has to close them down or ask staff to take a pay cut. We know they are not going to fold the franchises.

For the players they either take the pay cut or lose up to 4 x 25 jobs, I dont think that will fly with a lot of the PA, a lot of players suddenly out of work so to speak.

We know the best option would be to move franchises to profitable markets and put in place some constraints on the owners to stop the GM's from over spending because the owners are just going to keep doing it.

I think.