Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

An Open Letter to the NHLPA from a Fan


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
65 replies to this topic

#1 BigE

BigE

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 472 posts
  • Joined: 25-January 03

Posted 13 October 2012 - 04:27 PM

Please share this link if you support me in my point of view.

Link To Website

Dear NHL players,

As negotiations surrounding the current CBA drag on and it becomes evident that players are not interested in any agreement that sees a reduction in their current share of revenue, I feel in necessary to voice my feelings on the matter. Though my single voice may be small, I assure you it is a voice shared my many.

I've been a huge fan of the game of hockey for most of my life. For me, as with many fans, it hasn't been just a past time, but has formed a part of the very culture in which I live my life. Family rituals and gatherings that centre around the game climax in the heartbreak of defeat or the swelling pride of victory. As a fan, I live it all along with you. Not only do I invest my emotions and my time into watching my team through the roller coaster ride of each season, I follow every player transaction, injury and draft pick with a passion. Players become my personal heroes and villains, my connection to something bigger than myself. I follow your every move with the caring eyes of one who personally invests myself in “my” team. More than that, I also invest my dollars. I purchase tickets, cable subscriptions, pay per view games, jersey's, car flags and numerous other items that allows me to boast my support for my team - in other words, for you.

Now you are asking me to continue my support as you fight against the NHL owners. In my view, you are asking me to support you in a position that threatens to shatter every connection I ever felt to the players and to the game. With comments made recently by players such as Alex Ovechkin and Ilya Bryzgalov regarding a potential unwillingness to return to the NHL if salaries are reduced, the damage resulting in my disdain towards the game may already be done. Mr. Ovechkin and Mr. Bryzgalov should instead be asking if a season is lost, will I be willing to come back and support their livelihoods as a fan? Are players today really so far out of touch with reality that they can't see what they are asking me to do in supporting them in there current position with regards to these negotiations?

With all of the focus on the players and the owners, and the constant arguing over each party's view of “reality”, I'd like to check in with the reality that matters the most, but is the most ignored - that is the reality of me, the fan.

The average NHL salary is 2.4 million dollars per year. The minimum salary is 525,000 per year. Statistics Canada reports the average salary in this country to be 46,000 per year and the minimum salary to be 21,424. I personally fall somewhere in between.

Let's examine my reality as compared to the reality of an NHL player while we keep in mind it is my hard earned dollars you are asking me to contribute towards supporting your livelihood.

At minimum wage I would have to work 24.5 years to match what the lowest paid NHL player earns in one year. I would have to work 112 years to match what the average player makes in one year.

At the average Canadian wage I would have to work 11.5 years to match what the lowest paid NHL player earns in one year. I would have to work 52 years to earn what the average player makes in one year.

Don't misunderstand my intent, I don't begrudge you for making the salaries that you do. You are the best in the world at what you do in a business that generates a lot of revenue. I understand the NHL is dependent on two halves to make the league work. You are one half of the driving force behind the NHL. Without you, there would be no product, and no multi-billion dollar revenue stream to fight over. Similarly, without owners, there would be no state of the art arenas, no arena staff, no coaching staff, no medical trainers, no equipment, no road trips, and no one to pay players. It is clear to me that both sides are equally as vital to the existence of the league. It is clear to me that a 50/50 split is fair. I will support you in your bid to acquire more than 50 percent when you share in the risk and offer to give back part of your salary if the team loses money.

As negotiations continue, the hypocrisy and complete uncaring you are showing me both in your words and your actions is what has really prompted me to write this letter.

Under the last agreement players were entitled to 57% of league revenues. Instead of negotiating a 50/50 split and conceding that a seven percent reduction in salaries still leaves you with more money in a single year than I could ever hope to earn in my lifetime, you stick to this grand principle, a principle so important that you seem willing to sacrifice a season for it. The principle is that you should not have to, under any circumstances, take any less money to play hockey because you already gave up so much in the last CBA. In the meantime all I have been hearing about is players signing on to other leagues to play for less money. So your message to me is that you will take less money to play in front of other fans in other countries that haven't invested their time, money and emotions; that haven't followed you your entire career; that haven't lived every up and down right along with you. You are telling me you will take less money to play for those fans, but not me. Perhaps you would also like to spit in my face for good measure?

If players such as Mr. Ovechkin and Mr. Bryzgalov truly represent all players, and I am truly to believe that you are beneath playing for an average salary of 2.23 million dollars instead of 2.4 million because it is “unfair”, then please do me a favour and stay in Europe with Mr. Ovechkin and Mr. Bryzgalov. I for one will not buy another ticket to contribute to your salary. I will cancel my cable subscription, I will not buy another pay per view, I will give away my jerseys, I will not watch another game. If you wish my support, not only must I respect you, I must feel respected by you.

As you continue these negotiations, I hope you will think long and hard on the meaning of the word “fair”. You probably haven't looked at the price of NHL tickets lately and what it costs a family to attend a game. There is no collective agreement that guarantees me a refund should you play poorly and I end up with a terrible product, but your salary is guaranteed. Is that fair? An even 50/50 split of revenue, that if fair. Failing the NHLPA negotiating towards that, and should a season be lost, you will lose my support and my dollars forever. After giving you a lifetime of support, I'd say that is fair.

Sincerely,

A hockey fan



#2 JohnLocke

JohnLocke

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,794 posts
  • Joined: 18-June 12

Posted 13 October 2012 - 04:52 PM

Beautiful.

Mafia Record: 15-11-1

Current Streak: 1


#3 Watermelons

Watermelons

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,694 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 11

Posted 13 October 2012 - 05:11 PM

If you really wanted to hurt the NHL, start supporting the KHL instead :P

tumblr_lv6jbk180f1r5jtugo1_250.gif  Kirby_eats_a_watermelon.gif 


#4 Rey

Rey

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,710 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 09

Posted 13 October 2012 - 05:27 PM

Unfortunately, the majority of people aren't in the same boat and will go back to buying merchandise and watching/going to the games once hockey is back. NHL players and the owners don't care about losing some fans, when it's all said and done, they'll have make a video thanking the, what they will describe as the "true" fans and everything will go back to normal as it once was. In fact, I'm sure everyone is still expecting the NHL to grow and increase in revenue. Band wagon fans don't both to make the effort to educate themselves about the situation so they will just say it's Bettman's fault. The rest will eventually hop back on because there's nothing else to do.

Add the fact that you singled out Ovechkin and Bryzgalov. It's both sides being selfish here. It just harder to feel for the players because we've supported them for so long and now they aren't playing because of a little pay cut despite being already paid more than they should. They really need to look at the NFL players for encouragement because the NHL is worth a hell lot more than the NFL but players, who are now are proven to lose years off their lives, make as much as NHL players. So, why are NHL players making so much to begin with? How can anyone, who has followed the situation closely still have any respect for the players after 2004 and after this? The problem is that, regardless of what happens they will continue to be respected and treated like stars. It's just how it is

Edited by Rey, 13 October 2012 - 05:44 PM.


#5 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,879 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 13 October 2012 - 05:42 PM

I understand your frustration, but not your letter.

First, players did NOT receive 57% of "league revenue." They got 57% of the final HRR, which is certain revenues minus allowed deductions for costs, arena upkeep, etc. Even under the limited definition of HRR, because of allowed deductions players still did not 57% of all "league revenue." Not even close.

Second, I do not understand your point if you say players are half the problem but you are only writing an angry letter to the NHLPA. Shouldn't your anger be directed at both the NHL and the NHLPA for their collective head-up-their-own-arse-itis?

Third, you seem to forget that players took a 24% reduction last time and gave the owners everything they said they needed to make the league financially successful, including the cap system. The players showed a love for the sport and a desire to keep the league healthy by giving in to every demand the owners made. And it worked. The league has record revenue (though to be fair, the rise of the loonie is a huge factor.) The owners, on the other hand, found every possible way to sneak around the rules they insisted on and are now demanding even more cuts from the players' end because they say the rules they demanded last time aren't working. So, let's review: Owners demanded. Owners got. Owners skirted the rules they created to get what they wanted. Owners mad their collective skirting of the rules is bad business. Owners demand even more from players.

Fourth, ignoring the fact that players generate the income for teams, not just with their actual work but also with their names and faces, it's unfair to imply that players face no risk unlike the owners who face so much. In reality, players have very real risks every time they take the ice for a game or practice, or even when they just workout. (Look at the 2 of our players hurt this summer while working out!) Their risk may be physical, but it is real. Owners, on the other hand, take very little financial risk. They get huge tax breaks (more than almost any other industry gets) despite research showing that sports teams do not have a significant positive impact on local economies (as most of the money ends up leaving the local area) and government funds for arenas the likes of which any other industry would do dirty things for. (Name another industry where public funds are used to construct buildings for a private corporation and then the private corporation is allowed to pay back only a small percent of the cost of said building over decades at little or not interest while keeping almost all of the profit!) Some teams even get yearly bailout money from the league that, despite them reporting losing money might actually mean owners took home a profit. Even if a team fails, the league might buy it from you or help you find another owner to buy the bum team for relocation. Name another industry with so many safety nets. The owners' risk is actually a lot lower thank you think it is, and certainly lower than they want you to think it is. Do not be fooled. If you believe (as common sense would seem to indicate) that the owners are smart enough in business to have amassed the kind of fortune to it takes to buy an NHL franchise, then realize they would not be dumb enough to stay in the NHL business unless there was money to be made. Even the teams crying poverty to the public may not have actually been in the red thanks to shuffling how they report HRR and avoiding revealing the other revenue their arenas generated (while often attributing the upkeep costs to the team alone).

And fifth, please remember that the owners are the ones who locked out the players. The players offered to keep playing under the old CBA while a new one was negotiated. And it's the owners who are demanding gross amounts of concessions (not just in pay, but also in limiting contract lengths while also increasing entry level contract lengths, and removing players' rights to arbitration to name a few) from the players while offering to give up nothing themselves. The players have already offered a reduction in their HRR percentage. It just wasn't good enough for the owners.

Again, I absolutely understand your frustration and anger. I just think it's best applied with a little knowledge. And I think the best way to express our anger over this absolutely avoidable situation is to speak with our wallets since the almighty dollar seems to be the only language the league speaks.

Edited by poetica, 13 October 2012 - 05:42 PM.

Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#6 SukhKular

SukhKular

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-November 03

Posted 13 October 2012 - 05:44 PM

I understand your frustration, but not your letter.

First, players did NOT receive 57% of "league revenue." They got 57% of the final HRR, which is certain revenues minus allowed deductions for costs, arena upkeep, etc. Even under the limited definition of HRR, because of allowed deductions players still did not 57% of all "league revenue." Not even close.

Second, I do not understand your point if you say players are half the problem but you are only writing an angry letter to the NHLPA. Shouldn't your anger be directed at both the NHL and the NHLPA for their collective head-up-their-own-arse-itis?

Third, you seem to forget that players took a 24% reduction last time and gave the owners everything they said they needed to make the league financially successful, including the cap system. The players showed a love for the sport and a desire to keep the league healthy by giving in to every demand the owners made. And it worked. The league has record revenue (though to be fair, the rise of the loonie is a huge factor.) The owners, on the other hand, found every possible way to sneak around the rules they insisted on and are now demanding even more cuts from the players' end because they say the rules they demanded last time aren't working. So, let's review: Owners demanded. Owners got. Owners skirted the rules they created to get what they wanted. Owners mad their collective skirting of the rules is bad business. Owners demand even more from players.

Fourth, ignoring the fact that players generate the income for teams, not just with their actual work but also with their names and faces, it's unfair to imply that players face no risk unlike the owners who face so much. In reality, players have very real risks every time they take the ice for a game or practice, or even when they just workout. (Look at the 2 of our players hurt this summer while working out!) Their risk may be physical, but it is real. Owners, on the other hand, take very little financial risk. They get huge tax breaks (more than almost any other industry gets) despite research showing that sports teams do not have a significant positive impact on local economies (as most of the money ends up leaving the local area) and government funds for arenas the likes of which any other industry would do dirty things for. (Name another industry where public funds are used to construct buildings for a private corporation and then the private corporation is allowed to pay back only a small percent of the cost of said building over decades at little or not interest while keeping almost all of the profit!) Some teams even get yearly bailout money from the league that, despite them reporting losing money might actually mean owners took home a profit. Even if a team fails, the league might buy it from you or help you find another owner to buy the bum team for relocation. Name another industry with so many safety nets. The owners' risk is actually a lot lower thank you think it is, and certainly lower than they want you to think it is. Do not be fooled. If you believe (as common sense would seem to indicate) that the owners are smart enough in business to have amassed the kind of fortune to it takes to buy an NHL franchise, then realize they would not be dumb enough to stay in the NHL business unless there was money to be made. Even the teams crying poverty to the public may not have actually been in the red thanks to shuffling how they report HRR and avoiding revealing the other revenue their arenas generated (while often attributing the upkeep costs to the team alone).

And fifth, please remember that the owners are the ones who locked out the players. The players offered to keep playing under the old CBA while a new one was negotiated. And it's the owners who are demanding gross amounts of concessions (not just in pay, but also in limiting contract lengths while also increasing entry level contract lengths, and removing players' rights to arbitration to name a few) from the players while offering to give up nothing themselves. The players have already offered a reduction in their HRR percentage. It just wasn't good enough for the owners.

Again, I absolutely understand your frustration and anger. I just think it's best applied with a little knowledge. And I think the best way to express our anger over this absolutely avoidable situation is to speak with our wallets since the almighty dollar seems to be the only language the league speaks.


Yes.
I'm saying Aladeen a lot because http://forum.canucks...dpost__10922428

I bet when Schneider turns 38, he will have broken all of Luongo's records.


Posted Image

General Manager of Buffalo Sabres; CDC Omega League; CM Connected; NHL 13; [[[[PS3]]]]

#7 thema

thema

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,366 posts
  • Joined: 23-June 12

Posted 13 October 2012 - 05:47 PM

Totally disagree. So it's the players' fault that the NHL has teams in such hockey wastelands as Phoenix, Miami, Raleigh, Dallas, Tampa, Anaheim etc.? Is it the players' fault that the NHL still doesn't have a TV deal? Of course not! And for those of you who think the players make too much I'll ask this question again: do you think it would be fair and right to limit the amount that entertainers like, say, Nickelback or Lady Gaga or Justin Beiber make at their concerts? Would it be fair to tell an emerging new band that they can only make a maximum amount of x number of dollars in their first three years? Of course not; that would be a form of, GAD!, COMMUNISM now wouldn't it. That's what the NHL is practicing right now which is why guys like Radulov, who suffered under a communist system for years decided that hey had suffered enough under such rules and went to where they could make the most money, just like me and you. Finally remember one thing: fans don't go to games twatch the owners sit in their luxury boxes, they go to see the players who ARE the product, period. IMHO the players should be getting more like 75% of the pie since without them there is no NHL.

#8 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,803 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 13 October 2012 - 05:49 PM

Totally disagree. So it's the players' fault that the NHL has teams in such hockey wastelands as Phoenix, Miami, Raleigh, Dallas, Tampa, Anaheim etc.? Is it the players' fault that the NHL still doesn't have a TV deal? Of course not! And for those of you who think the players make too much I'll ask this question again: do you think it would be fair and right to limit the amount that entertainers like, say, Nickelback or Lady Gaga or Justin Beiber make at their concerts? Would it be fair to tell an emerging new band that they can only make a maximum amount of x number of dollars in their first three years? Of course not; that would be a form of, GAD!, COMMUNISM now wouldn't it. That's what the NHL is practicing right now which is why guys like Radulov, who suffered under a communist system for years decided that hey had suffered enough under such rules and went to where they could make the most money, just like me and you. Finally remember one thing: fans don't go to games twatch the owners sit in their luxury boxes, they go to see the players who ARE the product, period. IMHO the players should be getting more like 75% of the pie since without them there is no NHL.


LOL....Radulov was born in '86 so, yeah....nope. His parents sure.......

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#9 Rey

Rey

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,710 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 09

Posted 13 October 2012 - 05:52 PM

Totally disagree. So it's the players' fault that the NHL has teams in such hockey wastelands as Phoenix, Miami, Raleigh, Dallas, Tampa, Anaheim etc.? Is it the players' fault that the NHL still doesn't have a TV deal? Of course not! And for those of you who think the players make too much I'll ask this question again: do you think it would be fair and right to limit the amount that entertainers like, say, Nickelback or Lady Gaga or Justin Beiber make at their concerts? Would it be fair to tell an emerging new band that they can only make a maximum amount of x number of dollars in their first three years? Of course not; that would be a form of, GAD!, COMMUNISM now wouldn't it. That's what the NHL is practicing right now which is why guys like Radulov, who suffered under a communist system for years decided that hey had suffered enough under such rules and went to where they could make the most money, just like me and you. Finally remember one thing: fans don't go to games twatch the owners sit in their luxury boxes, they go to see the players who ARE the product, period. IMHO the players should be getting more like 75% of the pie since without them there is no NHL.


Entertainers that are signed to record labels are given a % of how much they make from the combined concerts, merchandise, etc. They don't get all of it. In fact, I'm sure it's unfair. Musicians have spoken about this, but it's not up to them. The owners/record labels get a hell lot more money than the musicians/entertainers themselves. Only a few have superstar status that make enough to be considered millionaires and live in mansions. Millions of artist are having difficulties supporting themselves. Several have to pay to tour and find places to be able to play in. Most play in bars. It isn't a coincidence that many stars have been found on the streets or playing in bars. It's the record label that finds them venues to play in, promote them, and basically support them. There's a reason why we don't hear from a lot of independent musicians. It's business.

The owners provide everything. The player's play. If only the players mattered, when why would there be owners?

At the end of the day, owners will always get they want.

Edited by Rey, 13 October 2012 - 06:14 PM.


#10 thema

thema

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,366 posts
  • Joined: 23-June 12

Posted 13 October 2012 - 06:27 PM

Entertainers that are signed to record labels are given a % of how much they make from the combined concerts, merchandise, etc. They don't get all of it. In fact, I'm sure it's unfair. Musicians have spoken about this, but it's not up to them. The owners/record labels get a hell lot more money than the musicians/entertainers themselves. Only a few have superstar status that make enough to be considered millionaires and live in mansions. Millions of artist are having difficulties supporting themselves. Several have to pay to tour and find places to be able to play in. Most play in bars. It isn't a coincidence that many stars have been found on the streets or playing in bars. It's the record label that finds them venues to play in, promote them, and basically support them. There's a reason why we don't hear from a lot of independent musicians. It's business.

The owners provide everything. The player's play. If only the players mattered, when why would there be owners?

At the end of the day, owners will always get they want.


Your vision of the music business is about 15 years out of date. As a professional musician I can tell you that I get 100% of whatever I earn at the door after expenses (usually the sound man and the door person). As bands get bigger they get hit with rip offs such as venues demanding up to 20% of their merch sales but the bands can always tell the venues to pound sand and either sell their merch out of the parking lot or on their website. Record sales now account for probably less than 1% of a typical musician's income and if you own your own label (as more and more artists are doing) you get 100% of the money after your manufacturing and distribution costs. Only recently are artists signing what are known as "360 deals" where the record company has claims on not only the record sales but on the concert gross and the merch sales as well but these deals are only for truly mega bands (who also get large advances for signing such deals) and your average rock band doesn't have to deal with this nonsense. Bands can ask for however much money they want for their services; promoters can either take it or leave it but there is no artificial financial constraints on the fee; the market determines the value, as it should. You say we don't hear a lot from independant musicians; you are dead wrong. Independant musicians have taken the music business over to the extent that the big labels are all but stone dead. If you have $1 (and are prepared to take on their massive debt) you could go and buy EMI right now, Beatles catalogue and all. I dare you to.

#11 Rey

Rey

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,710 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 09

Posted 13 October 2012 - 07:25 PM

Your vision of the music business is about 15 years out of date. As a professional musician I can tell you that I get 100% of whatever I earn at the door after expenses (usually the sound man and the door person). As bands get bigger they get hit with rip offs such as venues demanding up to 20% of their merch sales but the bands can always tell the venues to pound sand and either sell their merch out of the parking lot or on their website. Record sales now account for probably less than 1% of a typical musician's income and if you own your own label (as more and more artists are doing) you get 100% of the money after your manufacturing and distribution costs. Only recently are artists signing what are known as "360 deals" where the record company has claims on not only the record sales but on the concert gross and the merch sales as well but these deals are only for truly mega bands (who also get large advances for signing such deals) and your average rock band doesn't have to deal with this nonsense. Bands can ask for however much money they want for their services; promoters can either take it or leave it but there is no artificial financial constraints on the fee; the market determines the value, as it should. You say we don't hear a lot from independant musicians; you are dead wrong. Independant musicians have taken the music business over to the extent that the big labels are all but stone dead. If you have $1 (and are prepared to take on their massive debt) you could go and buy EMI right now, Beatles catalogue and all. I dare you to.


It's hard to argue this without demoralizing you as a "professional artist". For, those who truly into music, will listen to independent music but for the majority of the world, it's all about mainstream music. At the end of the day, it's all about how much $$$ you make. How many independent musicians go on to have long careers, or are even able to support themselves? It's Vancouver. There are so many independent musicians here. So many of them are working 1-3 other jobs to support themselves.

You can also put gaming into this. Independent studios get bought out once they are having success.

Now back to hockey - The majority of hockey players want to play in the NHL. It isn't any other league. NHL pays better than most, and the gives the most exposure. You know, if the player's had a problem with the NHL they could always go play elsewhere.

Edited by Rey, 13 October 2012 - 07:35 PM.


#12 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 13 October 2012 - 07:36 PM

Great post by the OP. As many of you know, I have been writing this since the whole thing obviously was not going to happen.

I was in total denial at first. My common sense told me neither the players or the owners had anything to gain this time. There would be no lock out.

Then I find out the players do not want to even go down to 50 / 50 ? Not even help by capping it at 5 years max contract?

They even hire a loaded gun from the baseball lockout . Thats not a sign you want to compromise. I obviously wasnt paying attention at the time but when I found that out, I knew we were in for a long battle, as other had said before me.

I cant even imagine taking all the risk in a business, but only getting 43% of the revenue? 43% of my own money? I bet everyone here would be royally pissed off about it too.

the players get 57% guaranteed profit .

the owners get 43% , and then have to start deducting for losing teams, and then transfer payments blah blah marketing building new stadiums or buying enough politicians to get it done blah blah............dont forget about minor league payrolls rising taxes etc........

That 43% starts to look like 25% and even less in the end.

The players blew it by hiring a guy who is known for STONE WALLING and hard bargaining. There is no way the NHL ownership group is going to let Fehr push them around. The league and the Stanley Cup belong to the Owners, not the players union.

And since they got Fehr, there is little chance he is going to cramp his EGO to get a deal done either. So there will be no hockey.

i say FIRE the NHLPA and hire new players and invite them to start a new union willing to accept 50% and 5 year max contracts.

In fact I would argue do it now so we can start playing games. They will be bush league at first yes, but at least there will be hockey and we can just move on.
Posted Image

#13 chisoxin12

chisoxin12

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,610 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 09

Posted 13 October 2012 - 08:23 PM

While they're in the firing mode, they should maybe fire all those dumba** GM's that signed those UFA's this past July. You know the ones I'm talking about too, the same two that Craig Leopold signed to signing bonuses, as well. The same Craig Leopold that's on the NHL owners negotiating team.
Fire the players, yeah right! I had a hell of a time trying to watch an AHL game this afternoon, with a small spattering of NHL talent, if you think that's going to sell fans, forget it.

#14 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,879 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 13 October 2012 - 08:55 PM

[Message edited for brevity.]
I cant even imagine taking all the risk in a business, but only getting 43% of the revenue? 43% of my own money? I bet everyone here would be royally pissed off about it too.

the players get 57% guaranteed profit .

the owners get 43% , and then have to start deducting for losing teams, and then transfer payments blah blah marketing building new stadiums or buying enough politicians to get it done blah blah............dont forget about minor league payrolls rising taxes etc........


:picard: See my post above.
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#15 BigE

BigE

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 472 posts
  • Joined: 25-January 03

Posted 13 October 2012 - 08:59 PM

Thanks for the thoughtful response poetica.

I understand your frustration, but not your letter.

First, players did NOT receive 57% of "league revenue." They got 57% of the final HRR, which is certain revenues minus allowed deductions for costs, arena upkeep, etc. Even under the limited definition of HRR, because of allowed deductions players still did not 57% of all "league revenue." Not even close.

I didn't realize that there was NHL revenue not considered hockey related. I recall a time when players were wanting to count things like concert and event proceeds towards a team's revenue, but I didn't realize there was NHL revenue not counted as hockey related. In any case it doesn't change my point of view or the spirit of my post, however I will take the time understand that aspect of the CBA.

Second, I do not understand your point if you say players are half the problem but you are only writing an angry letter to the NHLPA. Shouldn't your anger be directed at both the NHL and the NHLPA for their collective head-up-their-own-arse-itis?

I thought that would have been clear in my letter, but allow me to clarify. From how I see things it is the player that are refusing to take any type of reduction in the current pay structure. The owners appear to working towards something that resembles a 50/50 split. When the day comes that it is the owners that are unwilling to move past a number that is below 50 percent, I will direct the same frustration towards them.

Third, you seem to forget that players took a 24% reduction last time and gave the owners everything they said they needed to make the league financially successful, including the cap system. The players showed a love for the sport and a desire to keep the league healthy by giving in to every demand the owners made. And it worked. The league has record revenue (though to be fair, the rise of the loonie is a huge factor.) The owners, on the other hand, found every possible way to sneak around the rules they insisted on and are now demanding even more cuts from the players' end because they say the rules they demanded last time aren't working. So, let's review: Owners demanded. Owners got. Owners skirted the rules they created to get what they wanted. Owners mad their collective skirting of the rules is bad business. Owners demand even more from players.

I'm a bit surprised at this statment. I referenced the fact that the players feel entitled to their current salaries due to the reduction they tooks last time around. As a fan I am still upset by the fact that we missed an entire season for a system that the players viewed as so wrong and yet has seen their average salary climb to well over what it was before a cap system. So I will respectfully disagree that the players are owed anything because they conceded the last time around.

Fourth, ignoring the fact that players generate the income for teams, not just with their actual work but also with their names and faces, it's unfair to imply that players face no risk unlike the owners who face so much. In reality, players have very real risks every time they take the ice for a game or practice, or even when they just workout. (Look at the 2 of our players hurt this summer while working out!) Their risk may be physical, but it is real. Owners, on the other hand, take very little financial risk. They get huge tax breaks (more than almost any other industry gets) despite research showing that sports teams do not have a significant positive impact on local economies (as most of the money ends up leaving the local area) and government funds for arenas the likes of which any other industry would do dirty things for. (Name another industry where public funds are used to construct buildings for a private corporation and then the private corporation is allowed to pay back only a small percent of the cost of said building over decades at little or not interest while keeping almost all of the profit!) Some teams even get yearly bailout money from the league that, despite them reporting losing money might actually mean owners took home a profit. Even if a team fails, the league might buy it from you or help you find another owner to buy the bum team for relocation. Name another industry with so many safety nets. The owners' risk is actually a lot lower thank you think it is, and certainly lower than they want you to think it is. Do not be fooled. If you believe (as common sense would seem to indicate) that the owners are smart enough in business to have amassed the kind of fortune to it takes to buy an NHL franchise, then realize they would not be dumb enough to stay in the NHL business unless there was money to be made. Even the teams crying poverty to the public may not have actually been in the red thanks to shuffling how they report HRR and avoiding revealing the other revenue their arenas generated (while often attributing the upkeep costs to the team alone).

I think we can simply agree that our view points differ on this point. Yes players take physical risks when they take to the ice. I suppose that is why they must be insured. I completely disagree with your statement that owners take very little risk. I don't want to debate the ethics of big business vs. the plight of the worker, so I'll just leave it at us not seeing eye to eye on this point.

And fifth, please remember that the owners are the ones who locked out the players. The players offered to keep playing under the old CBA while a new one was negotiated. And it's the owners who are demanding gross amounts of concessions (not just in pay, but also in limiting contract lengths while also increasing entry level contract lengths, and removing players' rights to arbitration to name a few) from the players while offering to give up nothing themselves. The players have already offered a reduction in their HRR percentage. It just wasn't good enough for the owners.

The idea of the owners being the bad guys because they locked out the players holds no water with me. Naturally the players would agree to keep playing under the system they want to keep in place. They would agree to this idefinately, so I am not sure where you are going with this statement.

Again, I absolutely understand your frustration and anger. I just think it's best applied with a little knowledge. And I think the best way to express our anger over this absolutely avoidable situation is to speak with our wallets since the almighty dollar seems to be the only language the league speaks.

Hah, I'll take the "applied with a little knowledgee" dig in stride. I think I'm fairly well informed, we just happen to have opposing of points of view. Your point on expressing our frustration with out wallets speaks to the heart of my letter. On this we certainly agree. Again, thanks for joining the conversation.

#16 Mike Vanderhoek

Mike Vanderhoek

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,711 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 09

Posted 13 October 2012 - 09:14 PM

I wonder if the players whom signed their mega contracts this summer, namely in Minnesota or in previous years were forced to raise the compensatory bar by competing teams vying for their services ?

I mean in the end both sides are really screwing up here, but as a GM trying to obtain top end talent, you get into a bidding war for certain players. The teams don't have to pay it, but then again the players don't need to keep working teams in negotiation to squeeze pennies from GM either right ?

So I don't buy the owners/gms have made mistakes by signing big contracts. They obviously would sign a player cheaper if they could. Poor players lol
Posted Image

#17 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 13 October 2012 - 09:59 PM

:picard: See my post above.


Yeah. I saw your post. What I say is correct, minus out the costs that is true.

The problem with you is not your logic but its the flawed platform you try to apply it to.

You start out with this theory that the players somehow OWN half the league and therefore are equal partners with the Owners and NHL . You make it seem like the league OWES it to them to give them anything.

The players are a form of 'cattle' (infamously coined by Alfred Hitchcock to apply to the screen stars in his movies) .

The players careers average 6 years and they are gone. New players take their place. Its been going on for over 100 years.

The Owners own the NHL and the Stanley Cup. If the NHLPA doesnt like it, they can go play in the KHL. There will be new players from the draft in June.

Then next June, then the June after that. And so on.

There is a reason why the owners locked the players out. They dont have 6 year careers. They have all the time in the world. They can wait. The players cannot. Outside some signing bonus' they dont get paid and they are on a time clock ticking towards the day they can non longer play in the NHL.

But if i was the league I wouldnt wait. I just sign new players and play now. If the fans dont like it, oh well. If you think they are just going to POUT and refuse to watch then you are going to be in for a surprise.

They will watch. They will complain that they suck. They will then notice some are good. They will then beg the NHL players to break ranks with the NHLPA and come back.

Trust me, a deal will get done very quickly if the owners did this.
Posted Image

#18 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 13 October 2012 - 10:19 PM

I wonder if the players whom signed their mega contracts this summer, namely in Minnesota or in previous years were forced to raise the compensatory bar by competing teams vying for their services ?

I mean in the end both sides are really screwing up here, but as a GM trying to obtain top end talent, you get into a bidding war for certain players. The teams don't have to pay it, but then again the players don't need to keep working teams in negotiation to squeeze pennies from GM either right ?

So I don't buy the owners/gms have made mistakes by signing big contracts. They obviously would sign a player cheaper if they could. Poor players lol


This is what the CBA is all about. It sets a framework and then the GMs and players agents compete against each other and against themselves for money and jobs.

So the framework was set by both sides. They are both to blame.

But the owners OWN the NHL . The NHLPA does not. So when the CBA expires, one side still owns the NHL, and the other side owns .............N....O......T......H.....I.....N.....G......
Posted Image

#19 ccc44

ccc44

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,423 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 09

Posted 13 October 2012 - 10:31 PM

All i had to see was your first line to come to the conclusion that your post is garbage . The owners are locking out the players not the players striking meaning the issue hear is the owners.The players have said they are more then willing to play and negotiate at the same time and they have a right to fight for what they feel they deserve just like anyone else that pays union dues so stop being so selfish as hockey for us fans is entertainment and for players its a job were they earn there income .

There is many ways to entertain your self outside of NHL hockey and for the NHL sake they better learn to become more reasonable before people get too used to not having NHL hockey and move on to other forms of entertainment be it local hockey or something else and lose any further interest in there poorly managed league.
Posted Image
SHOTS ! SHOTS ! SHOTS !

#20 BigE

BigE

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 472 posts
  • Joined: 25-January 03

Posted 13 October 2012 - 11:41 PM

All i had to see was your first line to come to the conclusion that your post is garbage . The owners are locking out the players not the players striking meaning the issue hear is the owners.The players have said they are more then willing to play and negotiate at the same time and they have a right to fight for what they feel they deserve just like anyone else that pays union dues so stop being so selfish as hockey for us fans is entertainment and for players its a job were they earn there income .

There is many ways to entertain your self outside of NHL hockey and for the NHL sake they better learn to become more reasonable before people get too used to not having NHL hockey and move on to other forms of entertainment be it local hockey or something else and lose any further interest in there poorly managed league.

I wonder if you read past the first line? In any case if you feel a 50/50 split is unfair you are certainly entitled to your opinion. However I would point out that simply because a point of view differs from your own, that does not make it "garbage". There is no right or wrong in these types of negotiations, just different points of view. My letter represents mine. For me, it is right, for you it clearly isn't. That is okay.

In response to your points, I can only say I certainly don't view myself as selfish. I help pay the millionaires and billionaires that make up the league and have done so for most of my life. I see the player's position and decision to play eslewhere as a slight to the support I have given them for so long. Also, as I mentioned before, I view the "this is a lockout not a strike" argument as wordsmanship with little meaning. Naturally the players are fine playing under a system they want to keep in place. They would operate this way indefinately.

While my letter is directed to the players, I trust it is obvious that should a season be lost and I (as well as other like minded fans) follow through with my pledge to no longer support the NHL, the owners would suffer equally. So there is message there for them as well.

#21 thema

thema

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,366 posts
  • Joined: 23-June 12

Posted 14 October 2012 - 02:19 AM

But the owners OWN the NHL . The NHLPA does not. So when the CBA expires, one side still owns the NHL, and the other side owns .............N....O......T......H.....I.....N.....G......


...and the players ARE the NHL and without the players the NHL is.........N........O....T.....H...I....N...G..

#22 canuckelhead70

canuckelhead70

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 611 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 12

Posted 14 October 2012 - 05:22 AM

All i had to see was your first line to come to the conclusion that your post is garbage . The owners are locking out the players not the players striking meaning the issue hear is the owners.The players have said they are more then willing to play and negotiate at the same time and they have a right to fight for what they feel they deserve just like anyone else that pays union dues so stop being so selfish as hockey for us fans is entertainment and for players its a job were they earn there income .



If you understand Don Fehr then you understand why the NHL will not negotiate and continue to play games. Example 1994 MLB, while playing under an expired CBA August 12th Don Fehr and the MLB players walk out and strike cancelling the World series for the first time ever. Fehr was trying to use the play offs as his ace in the whole.

I would rather the players be locked out for 2 or 3 years then have a season start, have us getting all excited about play-offs and then players walk out in March because they don't have the deal they want.

15% of players are willing to play oversea's for less but they will not do it here. I can't wait tell these guys have to get a real job after their hockey career's are over to fully understand the value of money. When the million dollar contracts are gone and they are making $75G a year, taking 7% less wouldn't have been as bad instead of losing 100% of the 2012-13 season. Let's all shed a ter for Iginl because after all he is losing $85G a GAME.

Edited by canuckelhead70, 14 October 2012 - 05:23 AM.


#23 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,879 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 14 October 2012 - 10:29 AM

I didn't realize that there was NHL revenue not considered hockey related. I recall a time when players were wanting to count things like concert and event proceeds towards a team's revenue, but I didn't realize there was NHL revenue not counted as hockey related. In any case it doesn't change my point of view or the spirit of my post, however I will take the time understand that aspect of the CBA.


There are some limitations and major deductions that teams are allowed to take BEFORE the players' portion is counted. That's actually a major portion of what they're fighting about. The owners want even more exclusions and deductions on what's considered HRR and the players do not.

I thought that would have been clear in my letter, but allow me to clarify. From how I see things it is the player that are refusing to take any type of reduction in the current pay structure. The owners appear to working towards something that resembles a 50/50 split. When the day comes that it is the owners that are unwilling to move past a number that is below 50 percent, I will direct the same frustration towards them.


Well, the NHLPA's position is that that they actually got 51% under the last CBA's when you include all of the actual revenue that had been deducted before HRR was calculated.

But, that aside, a dramatic immediate reduction in pay, including contracts merely weeks old, is not the owners only demand and not the only issue. They are also demanding a limit on contracts (which they need because of owners using long, front loaded contracts to get around the salary cap they demanded in the last CBA) but extending entry level contracts to force guys to play at the lowest salary levels and have less control over their own careers for longer. Perhaps if the owners were willing to give a little in regard to those demands the players might be willing to give even more in terms of revenue sharing. For a negotiation to be successful, there needs to be giving and both ends and so far the owners have not offered to give up anything, only made more demands. And that's after they got everything they asked for last time.

I'm a bit surprised at this statment. I referenced the fact that the players feel entitled to their current salaries due to the reduction they tooks last time around. As a fan I am still upset by the fact that we missed an entire season for a system that the players viewed as so wrong and yet has seen their average salary climb to well over what it was before a cap system. So I will respectfully disagree that the players are owed anything because they conceded the last time around.


I never said players were owed anything. However, I think it's important to note that the players salaries have only gone up because revenues have gone up, which also means that the amount of profit owners have made has gone up as well. It's also worth noting that the owners, not the players, set the salaries. If the owners didn't want to pay someone a certain amount they have the option not to. Why should players now be asked to pay for the owners choices?

I think you might be misunderstanding my point of view. I suggested your letter be aimed at both the NHL and NHLPA because I believe they both need to give. And yes, that means the players need to drop their percentage of revenues, but also that the owners need to give things too, not just make more demands and get everything and give nothing. They need one another to survive and need to behave like civilized adults, compromise and get a deal done that will benefit both.

Frankly, I also see these negotiations as a matter of integrity. The owners negotiated those contracts, some just a few weeks ago and now they are demanding that players roll back the agreed upon terms from their end while giving up nothing themselves. In my mind, that means they behaved far less than honorably if they were making contracts they had no intentions of fully honoring. Make them honor the contracts they signed, no matter how stupid they were to sign them to begin with. I'm not saying the players deserve the amount of money given in those contracts, only that contracts have to be honored. Period. Owners, just like any other business owners, have to be held accountable for their actions and commitments, but according to how they are negotiating they seem to think players should be held accountable for owners' bad decisions and misdeeds. That kind of passing off responsibility is just bad business and will never strengthen the league.

I think we can simply agree that our view points differ on this point. Yes players take physical risks when they take to the ice. I suppose that is why they must be insured. I completely disagree with your statement that owners take very little risk. I don't want to debate the ethics of big business vs. the plight of the worker, so I'll just leave it at us not seeing eye to eye on this point.


If your point is that NHL owners take the same risks as owners in other businesses, then yes we'll have to disagree because it's entirely untrue. If they were allowed to thrive or fail on their own in a free market where employees (as a whole) were not strictly limited in what they could make, were there weren't offered yearly bailouts and millions in extra tax deductions and all out gifts from taxpayers, I might agree with you. But they do not operate under the same risks as any other business. Not even close.

The idea of the owners being the bad guys because they locked out the players holds no water with me. Naturally the players would agree to keep playing under the system they want to keep in place. They would agree to this idefinately, so I am not sure where you are going with this statement.


You letter seems to be blaming the players for there being no hockey and your point seems to be that if they would just (yet again!) give in to every demand the owners make they could go back to playing and all would be right with the world. That view, however, is obviously wrong. If that were the case, it would have worked last time. Instead, the owners found a way around the rules they demanded so they could individually benefit at the expense of the other owners and because of that they now want players to give up everything again to atone for their mistakes. If the players simply cave in to their demands yet again and yet again take the full brunt of the consequences for the owners' actions, what will actually change? Nothing. Next time around we'll be back right where we were last time and where we are now, with a bunch of rich people bellyaching about wanting more money.

Hah, I'll take the "applied with a little knowledgee" dig in stride. I think I'm fairly well informed, we just happen to have opposing of points of view. Your point on expressing our frustration with out wallets speaks to the heart of my letter. On this we certainly agree. Again, thanks for joining the conversation.


Sorry it seemed like a dig. It actually wasn't meant as one, only frustration that our voices are almost silent in the NHL world and will only become more so if we aren't armed with the proper knowledge.

But you are absolutely right that we are both frustrated and want all of this nonsense sorted so we can get back to fighting over the important stuff, like starting goalie. :)
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#24 GodzillaDeuce

GodzillaDeuce

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,123 posts
  • Joined: 15-October 08

Posted 14 October 2012 - 11:44 AM

Poetica

will you marry me?

well I'm sorry that gd is soo perfect


#25 BigE

BigE

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 472 posts
  • Joined: 25-January 03

Posted 14 October 2012 - 11:45 AM

Because I think a 50/50 split is the fair option I do see the players as the reason things aren't moving forward. It may be true that I am over simplifying things by taking that position, but I choose to take the owner's claims of most teams losing money and increased operating expenses at face value. I suppose one's point of view will vary greatly depending on how much one choses to trust those claims. After a review of the books by the NHLPA I haven't heard anything about the NHLPA contesting those claims.

My letter was more about the displeasure I felt in seeing players go to play elsewhere and threaten to not come back. That is what is really at the heart of my message. I suppose there is also the cold hearted logic side of me that is annoyed because in the end it simply doesn't matter. The players will end up playing for less money no matter what they do. This may not be fair but it is truth. If they sit out a season, the average player will lose 2.5 million in salary. If they instead take a 7% reduction (175,000), it would take them over 14 years to lose that much money. I'm pretty sure the new CBA will have expired before then. The math clearly shows that sitting out a season isn't worth it for players, a sentiment echoed by Bill Guerin who felt it was the wrong decision the last time around. I get that it is an unfair position to be stuck in, but it is the reality. I just hope a season isn't sacrificed on a principal that won't make financial sense for the players no matter what.

#26 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,879 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 14 October 2012 - 11:50 AM

You start out with this theory that the players somehow OWN half the league and therefore are equal partners with the Owners and NHL . You make it seem like the league OWES it to them to give them anything.


Actually, I never said anything of the kind. However, I do believe that it is your logic that is applied inaccurately. You seem to be viewing the NHL as if it were like the garment industry. It is not.

In a garment factory, employees are paid by position and possibly according to how long they have been there. Skill has next to nothing to do with it (other than any necessary to get a job to begin with.) Profits are unaffected by individual employees working at a standard level of proficiency. If an employee leaves, the factory simply hires another person and the work continues with no real impact. No one (except maybe Monk, if anyone remembers that show...) will stop buying their products because of the lose of any individual nor does any individual contribute significantly to the company's profit beyond the standard amount for their position.

Hockey, on the other hand, is an entertainment industry. Teams make a major portion of their revenue not from the players' work on the ice but from the use of their names and faces on licensed merchandise. If a big name player leaves or joins a team it can have major direct impact on that team's profits. That's why owners are so willing to overpay certain players.

In the entertainment industries, profit sharing is standard. TV stars, for example, get not only a large salary in recognition of their talent and actual work but also a portion of profits from original and subsequent airings (like syndication) as well as show related merchandise. That's out of recognition that it is not only their work but also their face and name that people pay for. They are the product.

The players are a form of 'cattle' (infamously coined by Alfred Hitchcock to apply to the screen stars in his movies) .

The players careers average 6 years and they are gone. New players take their place. Its been going on for over 100 years.


And that's where people who inaccurately use the demeaning "cattle" analogy get it wrong. Hockey is not the product, the players are. If it were only hockey people came to see, they could see the Giants instead. Or a beer league for that matter. They watch the NHL because of the skill of these specific players.

Yes, players come and go over the course of a career, just as any other company will change with the times and alter what products it offers but that does not change the fact that it's today's big product that pays the bills today. A decade from now, iPhones may be a thing of the past but today they are Apple's cash cow. Five years from now, Crosby may be a washed up has been but today he personally generates millions a year in revenue for his team and the league, far and above what any entry level no-name yet player will be able to generate. And when your product is people, you have to pay for that.

And of course a director thought the actors were merely "cattle." But he was as wrong as you are and the box office proves it by how many movies make money based on little more than the name recognition of the actors in it.

The Owners own the NHL and the Stanley Cup. If the NHLPA doesnt like it, they can go play in the KHL. There will be new players from the draft in June.


Two major problems with that statement. Most importantly, the NHL, much less the owners of NHL franchises, does NOT own the Stanley Cup. It was a gift to the country of Canada and remains the property of Canada. In fact, a court ruling from the last lockout said that the guardians of the Cup are not required to reserve it exclusively for the NHL in the event of a lockout, but nor are they compelled to make it available to any other league/group. (The NHL does, however, own trademarks on the name and likeness of the Stanley Cup, but the legality of them doing so has been questioned as they do not own the Cup.)

Secondly, of course new players will always be drafted, but their entry is staggered into the league to ensure the same level of skill league-wide. If minor league players generated the same profits NHL players do, the Giants would make as much as the Canucks. No name (or no name yet) players will never generate the same amount of revenue big name players do just as any other no name product will never command the same price big name products do. So, you are correct that players will be replaced, but completely wrong in implying that they can just be replaced as a whole without significant negative impact on the teams and the league as a whole.

Consider for a moment how much the Canucks franchise would be worth if the Wolves' roster were all they had. Still think players are so interchangeable?

There is a reason why the owners locked the players out. They dont have 6 year careers. They have all the time in the world. They can wait. The players cannot. Outside some signing bonus' they dont get paid and they are on a time clock ticking towards the day they can non longer play in the NHL.


Yes, the "we have all the money and can wait you out" is generally the strong armed tactic favored by employers in every industry. But might does not equal right.

But if i was the league I wouldnt wait. I just sign new players and play now. If the fans dont like it, oh well. If you think they are just going to POUT and refuse to watch then you are going to be in for a surprise.

They will watch. They will complain that they suck. They will then notice some are good. They will then beg the NHL players to break ranks with the NHLPA and come back.

Trust me, a deal will get done very quickly if the owners did this.


That is never going to happen for a number of reasons.

First, you have no way of knowing what percentage of viewers will return. Even a minor drop in league-wide viewing or ticket sales would have lasting consequences, especially when renegotiating future TV deals based on lowered viewing numbers. And chances are good the drop would be far more than minor, especially when union after union jumped on board to encourage its members to not support the league's tactics. That would likely have lasting impact on the league's overall viewership and general standing with fans, both of which could take big chunks out of the league's revenues for years after.

Second, again, a significant portion of NHL profits do not come from the games themselves but from merchandise. Do you really think people would be shelling out big bucks for posters, jerseys and bobbleheads for some kid who had previously been deemed not yet ready for the NHL just because they reopened the league with replacement players? Think again.

Third, while players' salaries may drop when using replacement players (all at paltry entry level contracts), all other operating costs would remain the same. Couple that with the significant drop in revenues due to merchandising and teams would take HUGE hits to their bottom lines. The ones pleading poverty now would have real reason to do so and the ones on the bubble now would crumble. The league would be in shambles.

Plus, I don't think it's fair to assume that every minor league player would automatically be on board. Sure, the ones who had little or no chance of making it would jump at the chance, but I'm not so sure the others would. If I were a minor leaguer with a good chance of making it to the NHL, I wouldn't even consider for a nanosecond becoming a replacement player. Not only would I be shooting myself in the foot in terms of the long-term view of my career, being a replacement player would make it that much harder for me to fit in with my teammates once the lockout was resolved. Having helped the league strong arm the people who had been fighting not only for themselves but also for those coming into the league behind them (particularly as it relates to entry level contracts) wouldn't make me any friends!

And then there would be a whole legal issue of the players on 2-way contracts. Obviously they would likely be among the most skilled minor league players, but would they even be allowed to play as replacement players as they are (or were) NHLPA members? I'm not sure how that works, but what I assume they're allowed to play for the minors because it's a separate league and technically a separate company. But, they signed a contract to play in the NHL as an NHLPA union member so they may not be legally able to play as replacement players during the lockout.

Edited by poetica, 15 October 2012 - 11:32 AM.

Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#27 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,879 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 14 October 2012 - 11:58 AM

Poetica

will you marry me?


:lol:
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#28 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,879 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 14 October 2012 - 12:12 PM

Because I think a 50/50 split is the fair option I do see the players as the reason things aren't moving forward. It may be true that I am over simplifying things by taking that position, but I choose to take the owner's claims of most teams losing money and increased operating expenses at face value. I suppose one's point of view will vary greatly depending on how much one choses to trust those claims. After a review of the books by the NHLPA I haven't heard anything about the NHLPA contesting those claims.


I don't think there's been a major disagreement on that, but there are some disagreements. Namely, there are some grumblings that owners were using creative accounting to get around disclosing and fully sharing the profits agreed upon in the CBA, specifically by claiming portions of luxury boxes (which were to be included in HRR in entirety) as deductions for concessions or parking.

For me, I have a problem withe the fact that it seems sometimes teams are using the final HRR number to plead poverty to the public, citing that number as their bottom line and then noting the costs they have to pay without acknowledging that that number actually includes major deductions for many of those costs.

But I think the major disagreement is the idea of who is responsible. Are owners responsible for making good business decisions to ensure the success and health of their business or should the employees be limited in how much they can benefit to offset the bad business decisions of owners? Yes, costs are going up for all businesses and the players need to take a reduction in their profit share to help cover that, and have said they will. However, it's the owners who've found ways around the rules and sent salaries soaring, not the players. But instead of enforcing the rules for the owners, they simply want to further limit the players. So, I think the bottom line question is: does that make sense?

My letter was more about the displeasure I felt in seeing players go to play elsewhere and threaten to not come back. That is what is really at the heart of my message.


I understand. But it's fair to note that only a few have said they might not come back and that's probably as much posturing as the NHL threatening to use replacement players is.

Frankly, I think we should call the cops, charge them all with stealing our hockey and demand they handcuff Bettman and Fehr together until they come up with a deal. B)
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#29 BigE

BigE

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 472 posts
  • Joined: 25-January 03

Posted 14 October 2012 - 12:44 PM

But I think the major disagreement is the idea of who is responsible. Are owners responsible for making good business decisions to ensure the success and health of their business or should the employees be limited in how much they can benefit to offset the bad business decisions of owners? Yes, costs are going up for all businesses and the players need to take a reduction in their profit share to help cover that, and have said they will. However, it's the owners who've found ways around the rules and sent salaries soaring, not the players. But instead of enforcing the rules for the owners, they simply want to further limit the players. So, I think the bottom line question is: does that make sense?

Bob McKenzie wrote a great article where he echoed my point on the math not working in the player's favour (click here for the entire thing) and I particularly enjoyed the following description of the Jekyl and Hyde like behaviour of the owners:

Owners, by nature, are ambitious, egocentric, competitive, volatile and irrational. While the lockout is on, that works entirely against the players. As long as the lockout continues, the owners are going to take and take and take some more from the players, including, if need be, 100 per cent of the players' salaries. But the minute the lockout ends and games are being played again, all that ambition, ego, competitiveness, volatility and irrationality works entirely in the players' favor because these owners are going to give and give and give some more to the players.

Time will tell if it is only a few players that go off to play elsewhere. I would be remiss if I picked on players that threatened to leave and didn't applaud players such as Bobby Ryan who encourage his fellow PA members to fight the battle from home. There is a position I very much respect.

I hope they get this thing solved, because in the end it will be the owners and the players that lose the support of fans such as myself, regardless of who anyone feels is to blame.

#30 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,879 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 14 October 2012 - 02:20 PM

I hope they get this thing solved, because in the end it will be the owners and the players that lose the support of fans such as myself, regardless of who anyone feels is to blame.


Well said!
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.