*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread

[Bodee]

Posted Today, 08:44 PM

I cannot stand looking at, or listening whenever comes from Bettmans

mouth

At the same time it seems Hypocritical to me for NHL players to play overseas for any less money than they are willing to play here for.

Not to mention them taking jobs from Guys, who will never make in their Lifetime playing hockey what most average NHL players will make in 1 year, but do so because they like playing a hockey and making some money doing it

Plus what about there fellow NHL brothers who cannot play Overseas. They are fighting the fight for the prima donna guys while they continue on making an income overseas in other Leagues.

Then the High Profile guys go on about how this time they are more united ?

If they really are,then none of them should be playing anywhere

Maybe the other Leagues should make these players sign contracts,that once they sign they cannot go back to the NHL that year.

The pressure will be on the Owners if they see a few of these guys leave for the Year,and maybe settle this quicker?

Then the guys who stayed behind to support the new contract will be rewarded for more,than the guys who went Overseas

[Sergei Shirokov]

Does anyone know what the actually $$$$ guys like Nash and Thornton would get get in the Swiss League?

It cant be that much. Seems like they are just bored.

[Salmonberries]

Does anyone know what the actually $$$$ guys like Nash and Thornton would get get in the Swiss League?

It cant be that much. Seems like they are just bored.

[Bill Sikes]

Sportsnet World has it (used to be called Setanta, is available online as well), but there is little else apart from the sometimes televised Canada or US local matches. Heineken Cup rugby and the Rugby Championship (formerly the Tri-Nations) are great to watch and can have some nailbiters.

I'll be checking out a few more rugby matches while also searching for AHL and junior games, for sure.

[Bill Sikes]

It's funny because a lot of these economic issues regarding small market teams would have been avoided for the most part at least if Bettman wasn't so insistent on keeping teams in Phoenix, Atlanta, Columbus, etc...

It's also funny because-...well this one's obvious. Players are complaining about MULTI-MILLION dollar salaries.

In the end, I'm against the players on this one. True, the NHL kept going back to the well when there was no water in it, but that doesn't justify the players' actions for the situation now. A 7-10% reduction in revenue sharing is NOTHING when you're making a minimum of half a million bucks a year. Give me a ****ing break will ya? If you want to keep playing in an economically stable league, give up some of your dough, you've got more than you need. The players have forgotten that they are the employees this working relationship with the owners. These guys are "sacrificing" squat; they need a reality check, and fast.

Leave your pride and ego at the door and get it done. For the love of god...this is so frustrating. It's like watching two five year olds fighting for the last chocolate chip cookie.

[brewdog]

Not sure if there's an answer to this, but I got to thinking. How short can the regular season be? If, for instance, the CBA is sorted in February, would they play a 20-game regular season? Can you imagine if there was such a regular season, and a quick-start squad like Minnesota or Toronto was awarded the President's Trophy?

[Boudrias]

To all the people complaining about the players taking jobs in Europe - remember, the players wanted to play this year. They offered to play under the previous CBA, which has seen league revenues skyrocket. They also offered to take a smaller percentage of salary in their first offer, and their proposal was a better long term business model for the league.

Your friend in Europe only has the owners to blame.

[Boudrias]

Its the owners who are being greedy, they have done nothing but brag about increased revenues, yet they still want a bigger piece, unwilling to share among themselves they just want to claw back from the players, this is like when Megabucks Inc. cries poor, lays off thousands of workers, wants bail outs , then gives their execs multi-million dollar bonuses. How can you possibly take the owners seriously when Craig Leopold signs two slightly above average players to nearly $200 million, then walks to the other side of the table and complains about the contract he just OFFERED? This is an owner vs owner problem, the revenue gap between strong and weak markets must be closed up, taking from the players won't fix that, only a decent revenue sharing plan wil work, if the owners get their way we will be right back here when the new CBA runs out.

[Bill Sikes]

I haven't seen any numbers that support your claims suggesting that the revenue gap between rich and poor clubs can be fixed by rich teams increasing support to the poor. The woe is me crowd who defend the poorly paid NHL players tend to ignore their share growing from $1B to $1.8 billion over the 7 year term of the old CBA. Check out the media from that period and the NHLPA was saying it was the end of the world for the poor players.

The only rationale I can support for rich teams subsidizing poorer teams is to support the business plan for the NHL. My understanding is that the NHL business plan wants franchises in major media markets to attract media revenue sales ala the $2 billion $ NBC contract. I highly doubt the NHLPA would agree with shrinking the number of teams which would reduce their union membership. Nor would they agree if their share of the NBC contract $2 billion x 57% = $1.14 billion was lost. Any suggestion that NHL players have not done very well to date is BS.

Casting this dispute as a labour issue and insinuating NHLers are poor minions of billionaire owners is laughable. This is simply a battle of corporate interests fighting over a pool of revenue dollars. In fact I suspect a goodly number of player contracts are in the name of corporations the players have created to protect some of their revenue from taxation. I have never heard that player endorsement revenue was ever considered as hockey revenue in CBA talks. Funny how that works.

A more forthright approach for these two groups would be a budgeting foremat that recognized not only the player share of revenue but also a return on investment share for ownership. The NHLPA seems to be satisfied that revenue figures for the NHL are accurate. Why couldn't the same framework be used for expenses? Reducing the player and ownership returns as a line item on a budget sheet is more realistic approach. My suspicion is that in fact much of this work has already been done. To date we know the NHLPA has refused to take any less than the $1.8 billion they receive now. All they have conceded is to take less of the 7% per year they are forcasting revenue will increase but then saying that they want their 57% re-instated by the end of the contract. In today's economy assuming a 7% revenue growth per year over multiple years is a stretch. In fairness to the NHLPA we don't know what NHL expense figures are. While I expect the owners will have to share those numbers with the players I do not think they have to with the public.

[Squeak]

Not sure if there's an answer to this, but I got to thinking. How short can the regular season be? If, for instance, the CBA is sorted in February, would they play a 20-game regular season? Can you imagine if there was such a regular season, and a quick-start squad like Minnesota or Toronto was awarded the President's Trophy?

[thad]

Last

[D-Bo7]

In 94-95 - the lockout ended on January 11, and they crammed a 48 game season.

I would assume that the shortest season that would be allowed would be a 41 game season (exactly 1/2 season)

[Boudrias]

You seem to be ignoring two key questions: WHO WROTE THE CURRENT CBA? The owners with no input from the players, they forced the players to take it (same as they are trying to do again) now the complain about the contract they didn't have the foresight to see problems with, a contract that the owners themselves immediately went about sabotaging with mega long front loaded contracts. The players seem more willing to give than the owners, or should I say the few mega rich elite owners who want the players to pay for their own bad business decisions. Seems to me the owners let the genie out of the bottle and now find that it is very difficult to put him back.

WHO IS MAKING THESE RIDICULOUS OFFERS? The players aren't demanding the huge contracts the owners are offering them, are the players supposed to say "No please that is far to much, I am not worth that"

Also note it is not the players refusing to play, it is the owners refusing to let them.

[Ossi Vaananen]

Gawd, I just want to hear that the two sides are talking - that is all.

[Bill Sikes]

If the owners are responsible for keeping the NHL in business they should stop spending money they don't have, recognize that the players are not some minimum wage stockboy they are employee as well as product and the marketing campaign, and maybe they should stop stabbing each other in the back. More importantly they should realize that the fans are the source of ALL the money and they shouldn't bite the hand that feeds them.

[goalie13]

If the owners are responsible for keeping the NHL in business they should stop spending money they don't have, recognize that the players are not some minimum wage stockboy they are employee as well as product and the marketing campaign, and maybe they should stop stabbing each other in the back. More importantly they should realize that the fans are the source of ALL the money and they shouldn't bite the hand that feeds them.

[canuckelhead70]

If the owners are responsible for keeping the NHL in business they should stop spending money they don't have, recognize that the players are not some minimum wage stockboy they are employee as well as product and the marketing campaign, and maybe they should stop stabbing each other in the back. More importantly they should realize that the fans are the source of ALL the money and they shouldn't bite the hand that feeds them.

[Boudrias]

The owners HAVE to spend a minimium of $54M. Add something constructive to your comments you keep sying the same thing over and over and over again.

The NHL locked out its players Saturday night at midnight when its collective bargaining agreement expired. It is the league’s fourth work stoppage in the last 20 years. Like every stoppage, this one is about money and how to divvy up what is now a $3.3 billion pie.

If you are looking for comparisons among sports leagues, think NBA and not NFL, which both had lockouts over the past 14 months. The NFL lockout had only a single preseason game cancelled, while NBA owners lost 20% of their regular season and had to pack in the remaining 80% of games in five months. The NHL is scheduled to begin its regular season October 11 and that date is in serious jeopardy.

Move down

The NHL’s problem is the widespread disparity in profits for its 30 teams. We estimated that 18 teams lost money during the 2010-11 season in our annual look at the business of hockey. Several other teams barely eked out a profit, but the league’s most flush teams made a killing. The Toronto Maple Leafs, New York Rangers and Montreal Canadiens had an operating profit (in the sense of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) of $171 million combined. The other 27 NHL teams lost a collective $44 million. If you add the Vancouver Canucks and Edmonton Oilers to the fat cats ledger, profits hit $212 million with the remaining 25 teams posting a loss of $86 million.

The concentration of wealth at the top is similar in the NBA. The three most profitable teams during the 2010-11 season, New York Knicks, Chicago Bulls and Cleveland Cavaliers (a 1-year anomaly where the team sold out its arena with a cut-rate payroll ahead of LeBron James skipping town), earned $167 million. The total represented 96% of the league’s estimated profits of $175 million. The NBA tripled revenue sharing in its new CBA to help prop up small market teams.

Why did the NFL settle with its players before any regular season games were lost? Look at the numbers. The NFL’s richest teams, Dallas Cowboys, New England Patriots and Washington Redskins, earned a staggering $454 million last season. Yet, that total represented just 35% of the NFL’s $1.3 billion in total operating profit. The NFL cut back its supplemental revenue sharing program in its latest CBA. It expects $45 billion in new TV agreements to prop up the low revenue teams and keep their profit margins high.

Baseball is the most equitable major U.S. sports league when it comes to sharing the wealth. No wonder it will have had 21 years of labor peace by the time its current CBA expires in 2016. The top three earners last season, Cleveland Indians, Kansas City Royals and Chicago Cubs, made $87 million, which is only 20% of MLB’s $432 million in operating profit. High-revenue teams like the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox are content to run baseball operations with small profits, while making a killing through their ownership stakes in the regional sports networks that broadcast their games.

MLB has the heftiest supplemental revenue sharing system with roughly $400 million changing hands last season from the high revenue teams to the low revenue ones. The Yankees alone kicked in $110 million in revenue sharing in 2011.

The NHL is not in dire financial straits as it was in 2004 when a lockout caused the cancellation of an entire season. It does need the top teams to share more of the wealth if it wants to be healthier financially. The league currently shares about $150 million of its revenue and the league has proposed bumping that up to $190 million. The players association is looking for revenue sharing closer to $250 million. We know why the Maple Leafs, Rangers and Canadiens do not want that much revenue sharing. What about the other 27 teams?

[Sergei Shirokov]

The owners HAVE to spend a minimium of $54M. Add something constructive to your comments you keep sying the same thing over and over and over again.

The NHL locked out its players Saturday night at midnight when its collective bargaining agreement expired. It is the league’s fourth work stoppage in the last 20 years. Like every stoppage, this one is about money and how to divvy up what is now a $3.3 billion pie.

If you are looking for comparisons among sports leagues, think NBA and not NFL, which both had lockouts over the past 14 months. The NFL lockout had only a single preseason game cancelled, while NBA owners lost 20% of their regular season and had to pack in the remaining 80% of games in five months. The NHL is scheduled to begin its regular season October 11 and that date is in serious jeopardy.

Move down

The NHL’s problem is the widespread disparity in profits for its 30 teams. We estimated that 18 teams lost money during the 2010-11 season in our annual look at the business of hockey. Several other teams barely eked out a profit, but the league’s most flush teams made a killing. The Toronto Maple Leafs, New York Rangers and Montreal Canadiens had an operating profit (in the sense of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) of $171 million combined. The other 27 NHL teams lost a collective $44 million. If you add the Vancouver Canucks and Edmonton Oilers to the fat cats ledger, profits hit $212 million with the remaining 25 teams posting a loss of $86 million.

The concentration of wealth at the top is similar in the NBA. The three most profitable teams during the 2010-11 season, New York Knicks, Chicago Bulls and Cleveland Cavaliers (a 1-year anomaly where the team sold out its arena with a cut-rate payroll ahead of LeBron James skipping town), earned $167 million. The total represented 96% of the league’s estimated profits of $175 million. The NBA tripled revenue sharing in its new CBA to help prop up small market teams.

Why did the NFL settle with its players before any regular season games were lost? Look at the numbers. The NFL’s richest teams, Dallas Cowboys, New England Patriots and Washington Redskins, earned a staggering $454 million last season. Yet, that total represented just 35% of the NFL’s $1.3 billion in total operating profit. The NFL cut back its supplemental revenue sharing program in its latest CBA. It expects $45 billion in new TV agreements to prop up the low revenue teams and keep their profit margins high.

Baseball is the most equitable major U.S. sports league when it comes to sharing the wealth. No wonder it will have had 21 years of labor peace by the time its current CBA expires in 2016. The top three earners last season, Cleveland Indians, Kansas City Royals and Chicago Cubs, made $87 million, which is only 20% of MLB’s $432 million in operating profit. High-revenue teams like the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox are content to run baseball operations with small profits, while making a killing through their ownership stakes in the regional sports networks that broadcast their games.

MLB has the heftiest supplemental revenue sharing system with roughly $400 million changing hands last season from the high revenue teams to the low revenue ones. The Yankees alone kicked in $110 million in revenue sharing in 2011.

The NHL is not in dire financial straits as it was in 2004 when a lockout caused the cancellation of an entire season. It does need the top teams to share more of the wealth if it wants to be healthier financially. The league currently shares about $150 million of its revenue and the league has proposed bumping that up to $190 million. The players association is looking for revenue sharing closer to $250 million. We know why the Maple Leafs, Rangers and Canadiens do not want that much revenue sharing. What about the other 27 teams?

[NightHawkSniper]

TSN has KHL highlights lol