NHLPA Blinks first

[lenharper]

OK, your 2:24 post was the initial one I responded to -- the "lack of understanding" post. After I read that post I asked you, if not the owners, then who is responisible for spiralling salaries.

Your response was to direct me to a post where you laid at least part of the blame on fans and media for forcing the owners hands. When I inquired as to whether this was the reason for the salaries you said it was "the System".

When I further inquired about who should take the lion's share of the responsiblity for escalating costs (which I believe is the owners) I was directed back to the your initial post.

Now I am spiralling.

 

[n_v]

You are laying blame solely on the owners. At least that is what I infer. My "System' post clearly states who to blame. Everybody take a hit, ergo that is why I say "the system'. And I identified the parts that make the system (could be more such as agents). If you are still are searching for an answer after that then, like I said before, there may be a 'lack of understanding towards the nature of sports business' on your part. To explain that would be beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[lenharper]

Everyone's to blame but it sure would be great to bust the union!?

Your inference in that statement is that the lion's share of the responsibility for the mess is in the hands of the players and not the people who agree to pay them. I respecctfully disagree. Busting the union as a means to "protect the owners from themselves" (an oft repeated quote a number of owner's have uttered during this impasse) is, in my opinion, wrongheaded. But to explain that would be beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[antaeus]

Re: Re: smoke and mirrors - NHLPA saving face

....As for making a profit, well most owners are another form of hobbyists except they spend their coin on professioal sports teams for their fun.

Yup. Private fiefdoms operating under franchise laws within greater corporate holdings. They only have to release financial data to the franchisor, not the public.

Not many professional sports teams make a lot of dough, yes some do well the Leafs, Yankees and Man U but they are the exception not the norm.....

The fact is we don't know, it's private information. In negotiations like this you never release your full position, you are too weak if you do. I suspect it's entirely untrue. Occasionally a franchise suffers loose lip syndrome. Chicago Bulls in their championsip run mistakenly announced one year revenue of $800million. A few years later San Jose Sharks had loose lip syndrome and announced they exceeded the Chicago Bulls' best to date.

Regardless of TV deals, with very smart marketing a major league pro sports franchise makes alot of money. I suspect that the owners are used to making 1000's of % margin, it's being eroded and like typical CEO's the world over are predicting the end is nigh if everybody doesn't help them.

Pro sports teams have consistently screwed their players for money, contractual terms, appearances, lifestyles. The players have consistently become smarter, educated and a reflection of modern life able and willing to stand up to the big guy.

I agree with Goodenow attitude (I think it's G. I get exutroids G and B confused at times) to underperforming teams - they're shitty at marketing themselves, big or small market. Move them and give better people a chance. I agree with the players' no salary cap: it's the owner's strong arm tactic to get back to their overlord role enjoying guaranteed increased profit margins on the backs of their employees.

 

[n_v]

I believe a business owner has the right to decide his expense budget and how much employees should get paid. Not employees dictating how the owners money should be spent. If that enntails breaking the uniion, then so be it.

 

[shack]

It would be horrible for the players if the union gets busted. They'll only make an average of $1.3 million. I wish I was busted. What terrible employers.

 

[lenharper]

nv -- If that is the case then you should be happy with the status quo because that is the situation as it currently exists. Each individual owner has that right to set their expense budget (if the Rangers want to spend 60 mill and the Flames 30 they can). They refuse to exercise it. The employees are not dictating how the owners spend their money.

And while you believe the "business owner" has the right to set his payroll the independent contractor has the right to charge what the market will bear.

How are the players dicatating what each individual owner is prepared to pay them. They have the right to go to whoever gives them the best offer.

Did the NHLPA have anything to do with the Bruins decision to spend the kind of money they did on that useless player from Detroit (forget his name, sorry) or the decision of any of the individual teams to shell out outrageous amounts of money on free agents. No, of course they didn't -- the league is hurting because of bad decisions being made by owners of teams who, in a misguided effort to win the Stanley Cup, are inflating salaries.

And it is misguided because having a low payroll does not automatically mean failure. There are demonstrable examples of high payroll teams doing poorly and low payroll teams doing well.

 

[n_v]

nv -- If that is the case then you should be happy with the status quo because that is the situation as it currently exists. Each individual owner has that right to set their expense budget (if the Rangers want to spend 60 mill and the Flames 30 they can). They refuse to exercise it. The employees are not dictating how the owners spend their money.

And while you believe the "business owner" has the right to set his payroll the independent contractor has the right to charge what the market will bear.

How are the players dicatating what each individual owner is prepared to pay them. They have the right to go to whoever gives them the best offer.

Did the NHLPA have anything to do with the Bruins decision to spend the kind of money they did on that useless player from Detroit (forget his name, sorry) or the decision of any of the individual teams to shell out outrageous amounts of money on free agents. No, of course they didn't -- the league is hurting because of bad decisions being made by owners of teams who, in a misguided effort to win the Stanley Cup, are inflating salaries.

And it is misguided because having a low payroll does not automatically mean failure. There are demonstrable examples of high payroll teams doing poorly and low payroll teams doing well.

There may be a lack of understanding towards the nature of sports business on your part.

 

[antaeus]

having been involved in and around pro sports I would say lenharper is pretty much correct, from an overall perspective. Certainly he says nothing wrong. I believe n_v statements are another erudite rehashing of the fan's perspective. Not wrong either, but not cognisant of the intracacies of pro sports financing, international labour, franchise and contract law.

 

[Ranger68]

lenharper -
The system pretty much guarantees salary inflation - it's not solely up to the owners to decide how much they want to spend - that is, IF they want to be competitive. Arbitration guarantees inflation.

We need to start calling it the *E*HLPA, because that's where most of the ex-NHL players have gone.

That there are demonstrable examples of high payroll teams doing poorly and low payroll teams doing well doesn't prove that teams with larger salariers generally do better - that teams at the bottom end of the spectrum don't miss the playoffs most often. In fact, this is a statistical fact, and applies to all sports. Higher payrolls correspond very strongly with better performance.

Screw the players. Let the owners declare an impasse and impose whatever CBA they like. What do I care? Even if the NHL were to achieve total victory over the NHLPA, the players would still be making HUGE sums of money. I have no loyalty to any of the players - just my franchise. And the fact that so many of these players have deserted to play elsewhere speaks volumes about *their* loyalty. The converse of this situation - where players, locked out, go elsewhere - would be if the owners brought in scabs during a strike. The union wouldn't like it one bit, and I daresay many in here would be crying foul. Well, that's essentially what the players are doing - abandoning the bargaining to make money in some other line of work. Good riddance.

There will be no hockey this year. The owners *will* declare an impasse, and impose their own CBA for the start of next season. The NHLPA will, naturally, take them to court, but the league will nevertheless begin again with mostly replacement players - including a fair number of players who will cross the line, and a ton of juniors - whose rookie salaries have been "tossed under the bus" by both sides already. Anyway, in two years, nobody will see any difference - many players will crack and play in any case.

And life will go on for the poor NHL players.

 

[wumpscut]

now THIS is why there is a union....

I believe a business owner has the right to decide his expense budget and how much employees should get paid. Not employees dictating how the owners money should be spent. If that enntails breaking the uniion, then so be it.

I wish I could remember the book I read that detailed all the screwing of the players by managers and Alan Eagleson, it was shocking how badly the players were treated and underpaid. The union was made to stop this and they have stopped it (too well if you see things like n_v does.)

If there was no union, NHL management could go right back to screwing the players. Completely unacceptable. Remember how having a Gretsky or Lemieax (sp) play in a game meant attendance shot up? That was a great increase to an owners revenue so why shouldn't the stars who put asses in seats get paid handsomely? Seems fair to me.
Are hockey players getting too much? Maybe? Would the owners pay them a fair wage if they were no union? Not __cking likely! One only has to look back at the games history to know that.

 

[Ranger68]

For the most part, players do not drive attendance. That is, they DO NOT, PERIOD. The exceptions - Gretzky and Lemieux - prove the rule. And even for those players, it's muddled - because PERFORMANCE drives attendance. Teams that play better draw better.

Eagleson was a player representative, and belongs more to the NHLPA side than the owners' side. Just to be clear.

Does anyone believe, with the system the NHL is arguing for, that salaries will seriously *deflate*? What would be the grounds for such a belief? Recall that *collusion* to reduce salaries is not legal.

 

[lenharper]

My feeling is that, at the heart of all of this, is an perception that the players are making too much money and that people who don't make as much as them have no sympathy toward them.

I think this anger clouds people's judgement on the issue.

 

[n_v]

What I am saying is if the union gets busted, they will only have themselves to blame and not the owners.

 

[Ranger68]

Aren't the players making ridiculous amounts of money?
Of course, it's a supply and demand thing. But, still?
It's not anger.
I just think, to characterize this situation like ones from the nineteenth and early twentieth century - poor, beaten-down employees being utterly exploited by owners who care nothing for their welfare - is perhaps *slightly* out of place here, hmm?
What's wrong with the NHL winning this round utterly? Are the players suddenly exploited? Well, they're free to go elsewhere - as they have shown.
What's the problem?

 

[n_v]

My feeling is that, at the heart of all of this, is an perception that the players are making too much money and that people who don't make as much as them have no sympathy toward them.

I think this anger clouds people's judgement on the issue.

Continue to pay 20% ticket increases then.

 

[Fortunato]

nv -- If that is the case then you should be happy with the status quo because that is the situation as it currently exists. Each individual owner has that right to set their expense budget (if the Rangers want to spend 60 mill and the Flames 30 they can). They refuse to exercise it. The employees are not dictating how the owners spend their money.

And while you believe the "business owner" has the right to set his payroll the independent contractor has the right to charge what the market will bear.

How are the players dicatating what each individual owner is prepared to pay them. They have the right to go to whoever gives them the best offer.

Did the NHLPA have anything to do with the Bruins decision to spend the kind of money they did on that useless player from Detroit (forget his name, sorry) or the decision of any of the individual teams to shell out outrageous amounts of money on free agents. No, of course they didn't -- the league is hurting because of bad decisions being made by owners of teams who, in a misguided effort to win the Stanley Cup, are inflating salaries.

And it is misguided because having a low payroll does not automatically mean failure. There are demonstrable examples of high payroll teams doing poorly and low payroll teams doing well.

You are completely missing the point. The NHL is not a "market". It is one product in many that makes up a "market". Furthermore, outside of competing on ice during games, the franchises are not "competitors" in ANY business sense. They are PARTNERS, and the product they sell includes ALL of the teams.

The lunacy of it all is that somehow the contests on ice have given the illusion of "business competition", and that is what the players are "milking", playing franchise owners off against each other. It would be analogous to having the CAW declare Pontiac and Chevrolet "competitors", and demand the right to negotiate between them - and to deny the true business organisation (General Motors) any say in the restricting the behaviours of its business operation.

The "business owner" is the LEAGUE. It should have the RIGHT to control it's members, irrespective of one contingent of staff.

If they want "markets", fine. Have the players check out the rates of other professional hockey leagues (true competition), or learn to play other sports (true competition), or go back to their previous occupations (i.e. tractors).


What the NHL SHOULD do is take the players completely out of the matter entirely (it is idiotic that they would have a say to begin with, but...). The league should simply state a level of salary that is acceptable, and teams spending over that amount would be ineligible to participate in the playoffs for the championship.

No "cap", per se (teams could throw away money to their hearts' content)... but I would guarantee it would bring an end to overspending.


Best regards,

F.


P.S. It is not "misguided" to associate payroll to performance. Evidence to the contrary is anecdotal - in truth, payroll is HIGHLY correlated to perfomance.

-54% of Stanley Cup winners since 1992 have been in the top 20% of salaries (with nearly 40% of the winners were within the top 10% of salary).
- Teams in the range of 40th - 60th percentile for salaries won 15% of the time...
- for the range 60th - 80th percentile for salaries, only 8%. That means - once. Last year.
- Teams in the bottom fifth of salary won 0.000% of the Championships.


To win on the ice, there IS pressure to spend.


Courtesy of Mr. Ranger68 on the topic in a previous thread:

"Of all the Stanley Cup winners since 1992, only the 2000 Devils and the 2004 Lightning ranked in the lower half of the league in payroll. Seven of the past 13 Cup winners have ranked in the top *five* in salary.

2004 Tampa Bay $33.5 million 21st out of 30
2003 New Jersey $52.4 million 8th out of 30
2002 Detroit $64.4 million 1st out of 30
2001 Colorado $50.5 million 3rd out of 30
2000 New Jersey $31.3 million 15th out of 28
1999 Dallas $39.8 million 2nd out of 27
1998 Detroit $28.4 million 9th out of 26
1997 Detroit $28.9 million 4th out of 26
1996 Colorado $20.6 million 11th out of 26
1995 New Jersey $16.5 million 10th out of 26
1994 NY Rangers $17.6 million 2nd out of 26
1993 Montreal $13.2 million 4th out of 24
1992 Pittsburgh $10.4 million 2nd out of 22"

 

[lenharper]

Ranger -- Who is characterizing the situation as you have described? Certainly not me, certainly not the players. And if you think players were not treated poorly before the formation of the union well you haven't done enough of that there readin' you're so proud of citing in your various other posts.

I would also say the concept of arbitration is a factor but is certainly not the major one in escalating salaries. Escalating salaries are a result of the amount of money individual team owners pay thier players.

 

[n_v]

Amazing post Fortunato. Well said. THAT is the business of sport.

 

[wumpscut]

Eagleson was a player representative, and belongs more to the NHLPA side than the owners' side. Just to be clear.

Does anyone believe, with the system the NHL is arguing for, that salaries will seriously *deflate*? What would be the grounds for such a belief? Recall that *collusion* to reduce salaries is not legal.

Eagleson "should" have been NHLPA but was found to actually been in cahoots with management. Why do you think so many players from the past want to kick his ass? Because while he was supposed to be heping them,he was screwing them over.

The grounds for my belief in salary deflation was history and looking at the rest of the world. When it was up to owners discretion to decide pay, they chose to underpay. What has changed, now owners don't want to maximize profits? I don't think so. More compasionate towards thier fellow man? Again I don't think so.
My looking at the rest of the world example is the Quebec Walmart that voted to become unionized is going to be closed. NOW it needs (according to Walmart) to be closed as its not profitable enough.
I've been on strike before and it wasn't because my companies union was greedy, it was because we hadn't got a raise in over 10 years and our employer wasn't going to give us an increase.