2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[OldTimeHockey]

To simply hold up the NHL's numbers and say that something is structurally wrong with the way players are compensated strikes me as giving them a license to run their businesses as poorly as they want because any losses can then be attributed to a structural problem with the CBA as opposed to any of their own decisions.

Exactly

 

[Kin]

Interesting new trend of referring to players as noblemen, though.

I thought we were referring to them as old Mercurys.

 

[Hampreacher]

If you run a business and a product line loses 30% of profits you close it down. Columbus and Phoenix and a few others are just not going to make an impact. If one or both were in a major market like New York, or Toronto you might keep trying but even after several years with little or no success isn't it time to contract those teams. Plus you have teams offering rediculous long term contracts because they have to reach the cap floor. One answer to that is to limit lengths of contracts.

 

[Kin]

Plus you have teams offering rediculous long term contracts because they have to reach the cap floor.

How do you figure? The teams offering the 10+ year deals haven't been teams struggling to reach the floor. Philadelphia, Minnesota, Vancouver, Jersey, etc.

 

[jdh1]

There's talk that after a 2 month lockout that the two sides will settle.I don't get it...Bettman's at 43%for a reason.He probably figures he'll start there and eventually they will split the difference from 57%to  50%.Lets assume everything else will be met in the middle.

So why the delay.. the ego of these two gentlemen are going to stall the season for what..so each one can say the won the negotiations.

Stop the bull and get it done by Sept.15..go down the middle and call it a day for the next 7 years or so.Then I can watch a full season of the Leafs missing the playoffs again.

 

[Hampreacher]

I read a blogger who said that if the NHL owners think they can survive a lockout like NBA did for 2 months they are sadly mistaken. They do not have the market that the NBA has in the US. Plus they have not recovered from the last lockout. It would be a disaster for league and potentially break the league.

 

[Kin]

There's talk that after a 2 month lockout that the two sides will settle.I don't get it...Bettman's at 43%for a reason.He probably figures he'll start there and eventually they will split the difference from 57%to  50%.Lets assume everything else will be met in the middle.

So why the delay.

Because the reality of the situation doesn't fit into your assumptions. Leaving aside that neither side is probably quite as resigned to the revenue percentage that you'd like them to be there's no way to "meet in the middle" on issues where only one side has taken a position. How do you meet in the middle when one side has proposed a limit on non-player expenses and the other hasn't? Or on contract lengths where one wants 5 years and the other seemingly doesn't want any restrictions?

It's a complicated matter and it's not going to fit into an easy box, no matter how much people may want camps to start on time.

 

[Kin]

Plus they have not recovered from the last lockout.

In what way? They've had record revenues and record attendance.

 

[Zee]

I read a blogger who said that if the NHL owners think they can survive a lockout like NBA did for 2 months they are sadly mistaken. They do not have the market that the NBA has in the US. Plus they have not recovered from the last lockout. It would be a disaster for league and potentially break the league.

They locked out an entire season and didn't break the league.  I'm fairly certain they know what they're doing.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

In 2004, Bettman promised ticket prices would go down if the league got the labor agreement it wanted. He even scoffed at the ?abstract theory? of supply and demand.

?The fact of the matter is, more than a majority of our teams would use the opportunity of economic stability to lower their ticket prices,? Bettman said.

The fact of the matter is, the average NHL ticket went up almost 25 percent in the five years following the lockout, according to Team Marketing Report. (The average Hurricanes ticket went from $31.77 in 2004 to $41.58 in 2010.)

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/08/18/2276212/decock-nhl-is-counting-on-forgetful.html#storylink=cpy

:-\

 

[Joe S.]

They certainly don't make it easy to be an NHL fan.

I know one person doesn't matter, but chances are if hockey is gone for a year then most likely my interest in hockey will die... its been pretty much teetering for a while now anyway.

 

[jdh1]

I read a blogger who said that if the NHL owners think they can survive a lockout like NBA did for 2 months they are sadly mistaken. They do not have the market that the NBA has in the US. Plus they have not recovered from the last lockout. It would be a disaster for league and potentially break the league.

The NHL doesn't have much of a market to begin with for half the teams...so what do they have to lose.The strong teams will survive anyways...I can't say that I agree with the blogger.

 

[jdh1]

There's talk that after a 2 month lockout that the two sides will settle.I don't get it...Bettman's at 43%for a reason.He probably figures he'll start there and eventually they will split the difference from 57%to  50%.Lets assume everything else will be met in the middle.

So why the delay.

Because the reality of the situation doesn't fit into your assumptions. Leaving aside that neither side is probably quite as resigned to the revenue percentage that you'd like them to be there's no way to "meet in the middle" on issues where only one side has taken a position. How do you meet in the middle when one side has proposed a limit on non-player expenses and the other hasn't? Or on contract lengths where one wants 5 years and the other seemingly doesn't want any restrictions?

It's a complicated matter and it's not going to fit into an easy box, no matter how much people may want camps to start on time.

Nik..it's all about the numbers,it always is..they will get there..it will be numbers,just like any other business.

Yes they will negotiate player contract lengths and all the other stuff...but it still will come down to the .......

 

[Kin]

Nik..it's all about the numbers,it always is..they will get there..it will be numbers,just like any other business.

Uh huh. But the numbers are complicated. This isn't even as simple as the players wanting a certain percentage and the owners wanting a different one. It's certainly not a safe assumption that either side is happy with a number you pulled out as a midway point.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

You have to love Bettman saying they contracts should be limited to five years while Philly continues to sign people to 6 year contracts.

 

[cw]

Nik..it's all about the numbers,it always is..they will get there..it will be numbers,just like any other business.

Uh huh. But the numbers are complicated. This isn't even as simple as the players wanting a certain percentage and the owners wanting a different one. It's certainly not a safe assumption that either side is happy with a number you pulled out as a midway point.

The numbers are not terribly complicated because this time around the NHLPA isn't broadly denying the basic financial facts like Goodenow tried and failed. The midway point won't necessarily make anyone "happy". BUT that number - wherever they wind up dwarfs every other issue by a long shot.

Where they wind up on that number is the bottom line for the owners. It's also largely the bottom line for the players as it dictates how much the players will make as a group - and therefore, substantially impacts them all individually. It will affect how much revenue sharing can take place, the cap floor and the cap ceiling. Etc.

Everything else like length of contract, arbitration, how many years before unrestricted free agency, etc is almost trivial by financial comparison or impact - even though some might feel passionate about those issues.

I think it's positive that the players recognized that some teams and the league's bottom line are struggling and their first overture offered some give. But they didn't go far enough to address the basic financial issue in a truly meaningful way from what I've seen. I thought Bettman proposed an equally unrealistic or extreme number at the other end of the spectrum. They'll wind up somewhere in between and if it isn't the middle, I'd lean towards it being a little closer to Bettman's number.

The NHLPA has had lots of time to prepare for this - with a couple of extensions to the deal. I'm not sympathetic to dragging it out. Everyone knows what the numbers are with respect to the leagues finances so there's no big mystery. As usual, there will be lots of rhetoric that the sky is falling with a looming lockout to posture for the best deal. And the league may even have to lock them out for a while. But a deal will get done with the players taking a cut in pay because the league's finances effectively dictate they must.

 

[Derk]

They certainly don't make it easy to be an NHL fan.

I know one person doesn't matter, but chances are if hockey is gone for a year then most likely my interest in hockey will die... its been pretty much teetering for a while now anyway.

It is an interesting issue, is it not? You would think that fans would be outraged and find other things to do, like happened with baseball after they wiped out the world series. I was a huge Jays fan but didn't watch baseball for years after that.

I don't know what is so different about hockey. Maybe during the last lockout, the fans realized that things were broken and needed to be fixed, so had more tolerance for losing a season. How about now? Is there going to be the same attitude?

Who knows. I am not sure what my response is going to be if significant time is lost to another work stoppage, but I will be interested in seeing how fans as a whole respond.

 

[bustaheims]

It is an interesting issue, is it not? You would think that fans would be outraged and find other things to do, like happened with baseball after they wiped out the world series. I was a huge Jays fan but didn't watch baseball for years after that.

I don't know what is so different about hockey. Maybe during the last lockout, the fans realized that things were broken and needed to be fixed, so had more tolerance for losing a season. How about now? Is there going to be the same attitude?

Who knows. I am not sure what my response is going to be if significant time is lost to another work stoppage, but I will be interested in seeing how fans as a whole respond.

I imagine it's a cultural/market specific thing. For instance, after the strike, teams like the Yankees and Dodgers didn't experience a whole lot of less in terms of attendance, merchandise sales, etc, whereas it essentially killed the Expos and cut attendance here in Toronto virtually in half. I would guess something similar happened with the NHL - markets like Toronto, Montreal, etc, didn't really experience much in terms of negative side effects, whereas Phoenix's struggles were intensified, Atlanta couldn't support the team anymore, New Jersey is losing money, etc.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

They certainly don't make it easy to be an NHL fan.

I know one person doesn't matter, but chances are if hockey is gone for a year then most likely my interest in hockey will die... its been pretty much teetering for a while now anyway.

It is an interesting issue, is it not? You would think that fans would be outraged and find other things to do, like happened with baseball after they wiped out the world series. I was a huge Jays fan but didn't watch baseball for years after that.

I don't know what is so different about hockey. Maybe during the last lockout, the fans realized that things were broken and needed to be fixed, so had more tolerance for losing a season. How about now? Is there going to be the same attitude?

Who knows. I am not sure what my response is going to be if significant time is lost to another work stoppage, but I will be interested in seeing how fans as a whole respond.

While my interest in the NHL may drop off even more, my interest in hockey will not. There are far too many great hockey games being played across Canada to feel that it's the NHL or no hockey at all.

I think it is why many people say "There are Leaf fans, then there are Hockey fans". Leaf fans disappear come playoff time. Hockey fans watch hockey anywhere, any time no matter of the age bracket or the skills on the ice. I can stand there and watch houseleague hockey for hours on end and not get bored.

 

[Kin]

I imagine it's a cultural/market specific thing. For instance, after the strike, teams like the Yankees and Dodgers didn't experience a whole lot of less in terms of attendance, merchandise sales, etc, whereas it essentially killed the Expos and cut attendance here in Toronto virtually in half.

I think baseball fans in Toronto have a sort of skewed notion of that because in the Jays case it was a perfect storm of frustration with the strike and the downturn of the franchise and the novelty of the Dome wearing off. The Jays were 55-60 in the strike year and dead last in the year they came back from the strike. The decline wasn't really strike related either but was sort of a natural come down after around 10 straight years of competitiveness.

In every respect aside from the Leafs Toronto sports fans tend to be pretty heavy on the bandwagon jumping and that's really a better explanation of what happened to the Jays.