goalie13 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I think the NHL and NHLPA need some kind of mediator between the two of them. It the fastest way to solve this no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Kypreos and MacLean are a bit of a joke. What do you do when the sport that brung you up don't want you anymore. It blows me away when people actually believe that owners are not on top of what is going on. Believing that NHL owners would put the final say in the hands of a group that cannot be challenged or removed might give comfort to those who think this is how this dispute will be resolved is a stretch. For the sake of argument players should consider the fallout if the owners did split. If the fundamental argument is over revenue and how it is divided not just with the players but also between teams then a divided ownership group could blow the NHL apart. Abandoning the existing NHL business plan of selling the game to USA media could be at risk. Financially weak franchises would be at risk as their financing becomes questionable or their ownership cannot get the 'equalization' payments frpm richer clubs. The players could be faced with a gate driven revenue model which cannot generate the revenue they enjoy now. They could be faced with fewer teams and thusly fewer jobs. I suspect NHL owners are very united. Failure to conclude an agreement that gives the NHL longterm certainty would be devestating to their businesses. They are losing money just like the players but their loses are more like an investment in the long term success of their operations. They probably realize that failure this time around means radical changes to the NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 No one's saying the NHL would be abandoning their business plan, or that a new deal would result in less revenue sharing to teams that need it (certainly not as a petty payback for internal dissonance). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I don't think anyone's outright said it, but I can see how people might get that impression because the last NHL offer said, "In addition, we have proposed the formation of a functioning and active Revenue Sharing Committee, on which the NHLPA will have representation and will have an opportunity to provide input, to determine the best and most effective distribution of revenue sharing funds." Some people (and I freely admit the thought has crossed my mind) might take that to mean that lower end team owners who don't tow the party line now, even if it's not what's best for their business, might have trouble getting the team revenue sharing money when they go before a committee of mostly (I assume) other owners to ask for it later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sting Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Kypreos and MacLean are a bit of a joke. What do you do when the sport that brung you up don't want you anymore. It blows me away when people actually believe that owners are not on top of what is going on. Believing that NHL owners would put the final say in the hands of a group that cannot be challenged or removed might give comfort to those who think this is how this dispute will be resolved is a stretch. For the sake of argument players should consider the fallout if the owners did split. If the fundamental argument is over revenue and how it is divided not just with the players but also between teams then a divided ownership group could blow the NHL apart. Abandoning the existing NHL business plan of selling the game to USA media could be at risk. Financially weak franchises would be at risk as their financing becomes questionable or their ownership cannot get the 'equalization' payments frpm richer clubs. The players could be faced with a gate driven revenue model which cannot generate the revenue they enjoy now. They could be faced with fewer teams and thusly fewer jobs. I suspect NHL owners are very united. Failure to conclude an agreement that gives the NHL longterm certainty would be devestating to their businesses. They are losing money just like the players but their loses are more like an investment in the long term success of their operations. They probably realize that failure this time around means radical changes to the NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 You are assuming a lot on what ownership is thinking or even talking about. Since none of us are privy to those talks this is all guess work. I have agreed all along that signed contracts are written in stone unless the club goes bankrupt. I can even agree with revenue sharing as the NHL is not a conventional business. ie No one is served if the TO Laffers drive all their compeitors into bankruptcy. If the owners do not create a structure which can clearly identify the revenues and costs of running the NHL then no long term solution will be reached. If they force the players into another CBA they won't be creating a partnership but continuing adversarial situation. If 2004 taught them anything it should be that. Neither party have done well in that regard. I have already suggested that the NHLPA has done a worse job as they hired the Fehr brothers who have a rep in the sports industry already. I have always thought that personalities in a dispute could not win the day as eventually the numbers have to add up. I am hoping this is still the case and that Bettman and Fehr will work something out. Bottom line is whether the NHL business plan is viable and how much they are prepared to sacrifice to stick to the plan. Do they feel it is necessary to sacrifice the goodwil of their players or even replace them? How much latitude does their business plan give them to make peace with the NHLPA. My gut tells me this season is toast. If that is the case then ownership must have solid reasons beyond personalites to sacrifice another season. If their lockout is simply to crush the players then this lockout is a poison I doubt the NHL recovers from. I cannot see that being the case it is irrational. The NHL numbers have to be telling owners a different story than what the NHLPA has to say. Again if it was simply personalities I suspect NHL ownership would lose solidarity very quickly. To much money to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 You are assuming a lot on what ownership is thinking or even talking about. Since none of us are privy to those talks this is all guess work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apricot Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I NEED HOCKEY NOW! Seriously, these greedy bricks need to get something done now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMelvin Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I NEED HOCKEY NOW! Seriously, these greedy bricks need to get something done now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I agree the greedy player need to get to the table and hook up my owner with more cash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I'm guessing fwybwed will be a troll for Halloween. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 He's makes as much sense as his username, so I guess that's apt at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apricot Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I agree the greedy player need to get to the table and hook up my owner with more cash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UFCanuck Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Gary's probably going extra hard on them for rejecting his realignment plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salmonberries Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Let's face it. We miss a season whenever it's time to negotiate a new labor agreement. It takes sitting out a year to grind every penny . Too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Why Paul Kelly thinks expansion would help end NHL lockout As we’ve all come to know over the past couple of weeks, solving the impasse that has led to NHL Lockout, Part III isn’t exactly as easy as people would like to believe. On the one side you have owners who have undermined their own objectives time and again, but still have the right to try to fix it this time. On the other side you have the players, who are simply asking that the full value of the contracts they signed in good faith be honored. Not that anybody is asking, since he was kicked to the curb by his own dysfunctional constituents three years ago, but former NHL Players’ Association executive director Paul Kelly has some thoughts on what might ease the logjam. And it has to do with expansion, specifically to suburban Toronto (Markham) and Quebec City. As Kelly sees it, making expansion a part of the conversation when it comes to the new collective bargaining agreement could bring both sides closer to realizing their goals. “If the NHLPA hasn’t raised it as a potential part of the solution, then it ought to,” Kelly said. “Maybe they’ve tried and had the door slammed in their face from what we’re seeing, but it really makes a great deal of sense.” The only problem, as we all know, is that expansion revenues were not considered a part of hockey related revenue (HRR) in the last CBA, and the league’s last proposal suggested keeping the definition of HRR intact. But the way Kelly sees it – and it’s hard to argue – the NHL is in clawback mode, but will need to make a concession on some things for this to get worked out. So why not split the pie equally when it comes to expansion fees? Two expansion franchises in such fertile territory would bring in at the very least $600 million in expansion money. Working on the 50-50 revenue split, putting that amount in the pot would more than make up for the gap between the players’ and owners’ positions. Not only that, those two franchises would be revenue producers, which would enhance the health of the bottom line and give both sides access to more money. Perhaps it’s too simplistic, but maybe a little simplicity and common sense is what is needed now. The two Eastern teams could easily be accommodated by moving the Winnipeg Jets to the Western Conference, giving the league two 16-team conferences. And as far as the detrimental effect a second team in Toronto would have on the Maple Leafs, well, the league pretty much declared that moot last week when it blessed the New York Islanders decision to move to the Barclays Center, which is six miles from Madison Square Garden. Depending upon whose perspective you’re relying, the two sides are anywhere from close to an agreement or miles apart. But this much is true. The players have come to the realization that revenues are going to be split 50-50 at some point in this agreement and the owners, by virtue of their “make whole” proposition, are willing to move at least some on the players’ demand they receive full value for their contracts. More importantly, according to Kelly, it makes sense to put franchises in such lucrative venues as soon as possible. The fact that it has the potential to bring the two sides together in the lockout makes it even more sensible. “Especially with the Canadian television deal coming up in 2015,” Kelly said. “I really think it’s time the owners and the players start talking about, ‘OK, how do we build our business?’ The lockout is going to get resolved at some point, and in my view, a $3.3 billion business could easily approach being a $5 billion business within a year or two if they add two certain revenue-generating teams and get out of this cycle of work stoppages and lockouts and labor interruptions.” What the league also needs, he said, is a long-term period of stability and growth, which it would get with a nine-year deal with an option for a 10th, rather than the six- or seven-year deal that is currently being discussed. Kelly sees no reason why, if the league and NHLPA are going to be partners, that a 50-50 split shouldn’t be part of the solution. But instead of demanding it be 50-50 right away, which forces the players to give back some of their salaries, why not have an average of 50 percent throughout the deal, with it going higher than 50 at the beginning and dipping below 50 as some of the long-term contracts reach their conclusions. “If you had a 10-year deal and it took you 53 or 54 percent of revenues in the first three years to meet those existing obligations, then you make up for it somewhere in the middle of the deal,” Kelly said. “Maybe you go 53 percent for a couple of years, then you bring it to 50, then maybe you swing it to 48 percent for a couple of years and players and general managers know they have four or five years to plan for that and then you bring it back up to the 50 percent level by the end of the term. With expanding revenues, even at 48 or 50 percent in those years, players are going to do fine.” Kelly is worried about the lockout doing irreparable harm to the business and it remains to be seen whether that will indeed be the case. Perhaps his sense of give and take would be different if he were still running the NHLPA, but we’ll never know now. It might have been nice to find out, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted October 31, 2012 Author Share Posted October 31, 2012 The NHL season is starting December 1st...according to Google. Hurray! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 So here's where I'm confused by our stance then: do you think the owners don't have a structure currently where revenues and expenses are clearly identified? There is in case you weren't sure, since it'd be pretty hard to figure out what revenues are at or if they made a profit each year. If you can agree to that, then I'm sure you can also agree the players only get a portion of that defined revenue (just the HRR) and the owners are allowed to keep a number of revenue streams out of the players share as a result. Also, and the owners have revenue from the hockey business that doesn't count against the team's profit margin so their actual Their business plan is a whole other issue. When it includes propping up teams like Phoenix then the NHL can't be too serious about profit margins - especially when the teams aren't the owners primary businesses. Having the NHL own Phoenix and refuse prospective buyers because they wanted to move them to a more profitable location is further evidence of them not thinking rationally when it comes to the business end of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Absolutely it's pure conjecture. I never claimed that it was what was going on, only that I could see how people might have reason to suspect at least that lower end team owners might feel, or even have it pointed out to them, that if a new committee is created to decide who gets revenue sharing money they would do best to stay in line and be silent. Of course, you're obviously not above mere conjecture yourself... Good for you for the glass half full attitude, but that doesn't make your proposed scenario any more plausible than a league controlled by a few owners with their teams' best interest in mind but not necessarily the best interest of the league as a whole. Like you, I sincerely hope for the best because you're right, if it's not most or all of the owners working together for the best interest of the league they will likely destroy the NHL. But given the facts I don't see a convincing argument for "the owner just know something we don't know." The reality is the league has had record profits and continued growth on par with other sports leagues. Almost every team has seen an increase in revenue and value. And whereas Atlanta had been losing money, Winnipeg is now earning more than was even expected to the point that they don't need revenue sharing and may be soon contributing to it. That means the overall bottom line is much better league wide, which is probably why teams were so willing to overspend by spending to the cap rather than the floor. And despite their constant reference to the number of teams losing money each year, the NHL is only now suggesting they expand their minimal revenue sharing program which will still only represent 6% of revenue, less than the average yearly revenue growth rate. They could have chosen to expand their revenue sharing program at any time (the players would have certainly agreed!), but they didn't. If the NHL is actually working for the best interest of the league and not just certain teams, why didn't they increase their revenue sharing before? Why did they impose silly restrictions on who was even eligible? I can't imagine the teams that lost out were on board for those restrictions. I can't imagine the teams that need the revenue sharing were opposed to increasing it. So, who made those decisions and what was their purpose, the health of their individual bottom line or the long term health of the league? If owners know something we don't, why aren't they sharing it? They have last season's numbers but they aren't sharing them. Why? If they support their claims of need they'd be buying billboards for them. I'm guessing they're not releasing them during the CBA negotiations because they'll show that the league's revenues continued to grow and fewer teams were in the red. And it would likely only further highlight the fact that increased revenue sharing would have helped most teams at the very least stop bleeding money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 I am questioning the NHL structure for identifying cost and revenue because whatever was in place post 2004 CBA has not brought peace to the org. No one heard the players during 2004-12 complaining about the growth in their revenue, however. Not all HRR is shared with the players but the reverse is true as well. The next CBA has to address the formula more than anything else. If you are questioning the presence of NHL teams in PHX and other money losing locations then you are indirectly questioning the need for NHL exposure in a large part of the USA media market. Walk away from that and where does it leave the need for the NHL to expand their USA media revenue. IMO you cannot have it both ways. You cannot pay major league wages in a gate driven enterprise. The NHL continues in many of these weak markets to reinforce their business objectives. The NBC contract was a partial vindication of Bettman's direction. It is not a slam dunk and could fail. On the otherhand if for example the USA won an Olympic Gold medal in men's hockey look out. Things could really take off for the NHL in the USA. Success in the USA is the ultimate savior for the NHL. Owners and players have to know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.