2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[Kin]

Sure, but one of the reasons there wasn't a unanimous agreement between them was definitely collusion, especially with that particular box having already been opened.

No, because the benefits still existed. The reason there wasn't unanimous agreement between them was because there was genuine disagreement as to whether or not the risks outweighed the reward. It's not like refusing to sign those deals would have made a huge difference in their leverage if they'd held off for one summer.

 

[Frank E]

This NHL is a business, and business must be profitable to be sustainable.

But I think this sentence highlights the problem with the stance you're taking. If the NHL is a business then the business is profitable. Right? By Forbes' estimates they're more than a hundred million in the black. But, of course, the NHL isn't a business. It's a league of 30 largely separate businesses that collectively bargain as an industry.

And it's because these are 30 largely separate businesses that there's little to no justification for the owner's stance. Remember, the idea that one of those 30 individual businesses can't cut their own expenses in players costs as they see fit is an entirely artificial mechanism of cost control that was insisted upon by the league. There are lots of positions the NHL could take to address the fundamental imbalance that tying individual team expenses to leaguewide revenues creates that wouldn't have caused a labour dispute. They could be in there negotiating a deal that has a large gap between the cap floor and cap ceiling. They could be negotiating a deal where each team has their own separate cap tied to their individual revenues. If we're going to pretend that the owner's stance is largely centred around addressing the problems of that bottom third then we can't pretend that the only recourse they have is a leaguewide cut in player costs. That would be like having a doctor telling you that your finger is broken and recommending that he put your whole arm in a cast just in case.

That's the "Greed" of it. The Maple Leafs don't need cuts in player costs. The Rangers didn't need a lockout to become a sustainable business. The teams losing money at a drastic rate are pretty neatly counterbalanced by the teams that are making money at a pretty drastic rate. That the league is so hellbent on having a CBA that doesn't address the differences in revenue between the Rangers and the Blue Jackets doesn't mean that the PA should go into their negotiations pretending that they're only negotiating with the Blue Jackets.

The issue here isn't whether or not a business needs to be profitable to be sustainable, it's whether or not an industry should have a CBA with their employees on the basis that none of the businesses can ever be unsustainable. There has to be some measure of Darwinism here.

These independent franchises are very closely linked though...the NHL franchises rely on each other to play the games.  If the league was pared down to the 10 or so profitable teams, well, then there wouldn't be nearly as many player spots available, nor revenue being generated.  So obviously the league wouldn't want that, nor would the players.  Spread around the profitability around the league, and you're still not properly profitable.  Your other examples of the league potentially creating a greater gap between the ceiling and the floor, or tying individual teams' revenues to their cap would fly in the face of their insistence on parity and talent distribution.

I think you're really over-complicating the issue here. 

Having only a third of your franchises profitable is a big problem Nik, no matter how you want to look at it.  In addition to that, having the stronger Canadian dollar being partially responsible for the increases in revenue, and ensuring Canadian teams are back in the black is also concerning.  If the Canadian dollar depreciates 10 points in the next 10 years, we'll have a whole bunch of issues again.

The business model has to work for the average team, and the way it has operated over the past 5 years doesn't work for an average team.  I don't think the league is trying to get a CBA to ensure profitability, they're just trying to get a model that allows an average team a shot at making a proper profit...not that I'm advocating the cap system, nor tying revenues to player salaries.  I think there are better ways of getting there.

 

[Kin]

Your other examples of the league potentially creating a greater gap between the ceiling and the floor, or tying individual teams' revenues to their cap would fly in the face of their insistence on parity and talent distribution.

Well, yes, the league would have to sacrifice something they have, that they like, to get what they want. The refusal to do so? The insistence on getting absolutely everything they want? That is exactly what some people might call greed.

Having only a third of your franchises profitable is a big problem Nik, no matter how you want to look at it.

Well, first of all, let's be clear. There's no need to round it. Saying 10 isn't any easier than saying 12. According to Forbes 12 of 30 teams made a profit. So it's 40%.

But anyway you would have a point if we were talking about your average business. We're not. We're talking about professional sports so there's no need to pretend we're talking about what someone needs to keep a corner store running. Teams will be better financially in some years than others because the quality of their product can swing wildly from year to year.  Some owners run professional sports teams at a loss because of their competitive nature and publicly state they don't care about making money. Some owners draw benefits from their ownership of a team in their other businesses. This isn't over-complicating the issue, it's recognizing that it is a complicated issue.

The business model has to work for the average team, and the way it has operated over the past 5 years doesn't work for an average team. I don't think the league is trying to get a CBA to ensure profitability, they're just trying to get a model that allows an average team a shot at making a proper profit

That's a largely meaningless statement without saying what you mean by an average team. The Colorado Avalanche were profitable. They're in the bottom third of the league in revenues.

Again, the Forbes numbers are estimates and they're snapshots. The idea that the Devils "can't make a proper profit" because they didn't is like saying that Sidney Crosby can't win a scoring title because he didn't last year. The Devils have been profitable under the existing CBA. You say that the league needs an arrangement that gives teams shots at profitability and that's exactly what they have. The thing is though Frank, sometimes shots miss.

 

[Deebo]

I hear that meetings have been scheduled for Saturday and Sunday in addition to the one scheduled for tomorrow.

I'm not optimistic, but hopefully something comes out of this.

 

[Kessel Run]

I hear that meetings have been scheduled for Saturday and Sunday in addition to the one scheduled for tomorrow.

I'm not optimistic, but hopefully something comes out of this.

Yep, saw this on Twitter too.

 

[pnjunction]

If there are so many teams in the red, but the total is still black, I don't see how that is the players problem.

It's a result of poor expansion choices and lack of revenue sharing among other things.

Why should players concede salary until the teams in terrible markets can make money, while teams in larger markets swim in cash?  I don't think they should.

Finally with this Bettman's 3rd stoppage in 18 years, as a player I would be tempted to put my foot down that I will never play for him again.  The league was making a drastic cut a requirement to even begin negotiations, I would be tempted from the player's side to respond by saying we will not negotiate with Bettman period.  What's the point?  8 years later he locks it up again and asks for more.

 

[TML fan]

The players should just start their own league.

 

[maplesyrup]

The players should just start their own league.

I'm not sure if you are serious but in the off chance you are, why? I've been locked out before and the thought of working elsewhere for nothing never once crossed my mind.

 

[bustaheims]

If there are so many teams in the red, but the total is still black, I don't see how that is the players problem.

It's a result of poor expansion choices and lack of revenue sharing among other things.

Why should players concede salary until the teams in terrible markets can make money, while teams in larger markets swim in cash?  I don't think they should.

To put it simply - jobs. If they aren't willing to work with the league to find a way to make the financial situation manageable for all 30 teams, they risk having portions of their membership lose their jobs. The sum total revenue is pretty irrelevant, to be honest. As has been mentioned before, the NHL is not a single business, it's a collective of 30 independent businesses. Just like it's not the players' responsibility to cover for the owners' financial errors, it's not the responsibility of profitable teams to cover the losses of unprofitable teams. It is in the best interest of all parties - players included - to work together to come up with a potential solution. Both sides need to make concessions if the league is going to survive without teams folding and jobs being lost. Right now, neither side really has.

Finally with this Bettman's 3rd stoppage in 18 years, as a player I would be tempted to put my foot down that I will never play for him again.  The league was making a drastic cut a requirement to even begin negotiations, I would be tempted from the player's side to respond by saying we will not negotiate with Bettman period.  What's the point?  8 years later he locks it up again and asks for more.

I think it's important to point out that it's not Bettman locking out the players, nor do the players play for him. It's the owners locking the players out, and it's the owners that the players play for. In these negotiations, Bettman represents the league in a similar fashion to a lawyer representing their client in other forms of negotiations. It really wouldn't matter who was in charge of the league today - the owners have given their representatives their conditions for achieving an acceptable deal, and, until something is presented that meets their standards, not Gary Bettman's, the players will remain locked out. The owners are the ones asking for more and Gary Bettman is merely acting on the demands of his bosses. While you're free to question his negotiating skills, it's important to understand that, at the end of the day, the demands he is making aren't his requirements to get a deal done - they're those of the owners and their representatives on the BoG.

 

[pnjunction]

To put it simply - jobs. If they aren't willing to work with the league to find a way to make the financial situation manageable for all 30 teams, they risk having portions of their membership lose their jobs. The sum total revenue is pretty irrelevant, to be honest. As has been mentioned before, the NHL is not a single business, it's a collective of 30 independent businesses. Just like it's not the players' responsibility to cover for the owners' financial errors, it's not the responsibility of profitable teams to cover the losses of unprofitable teams. It is in the best interest of all parties - players included - to work together to come up with a potential solution. Both sides need to make concessions if the league is going to survive without teams folding and jobs being lost. Right now, neither side really has.

Well the sum is kind of relevant in that the teams don't make their money in a vacuum, the richer teams don't make money absent the league and teams to visit and play. I have heard that in soccer leagues in Europe the visiting team gets part of the ticket sales, that makes sense to me and would essentially be some revenue sharing.

You say it's not the players' responsibility to cover the owners' financial errors, but couldn't expanding into cities with poor markets and/or spending beyond the cap floor while losing money fall under that category?

Who made the decision to expand or move into bad markets? Not the players, my understanding is that the owners and league made those calls.  Don't the other teams even get a payoff from expansion teams? It is far more their responsibility to make those teams work than the players in my opinion.

 

[bustaheims]

You say it's not the players' responsibility to cover the owners' financial errors, but couldn't expanding into cities with poor markets and/or spending beyond the cap floor while losing money fall under that category?

Who made the decision to expand or move into bad markets? Not the players, my understanding is that the owners and league made those calls.  It is far more their responsibility to make those teams work than the players in my opinion.

Sure, but the players have benefited from these teams much more than the owners have. As far as I'm concerned, that earns them a significant portion of the responsibility. Does that give them the brunt of the responsibility? I'd say probably not, but, at the same time, with player salaries being the single largest expense these teams have to cover, it's not like they don't like their share of the responsibility is marginal either. If they can't work with the owners to find a middle ground that works for everyone, then there will be dozens of players that could very easily find themselves out of work. After all, there are only so many viable markets for teams to be moved to, and the alternative from there would be contraction - which, if I'm being honest, might not be the worst thing for the league, but, for the players, it's pretty much a worst case scenario.

 

[Kin]

After all, there are only so many viable markets for teams to be moved to, and the alternative from there would be contraction - which, if I'm being honest, might not be the worst thing for the league, but, for the players, it's pretty much a worst case scenario.

I don't see how you can say that the idea of any net job losses for the union are a worst case scenario. If the league were to contract by 3 teams then the PA would lose 10% of the jobs. 90% of the jobs would remain. The PA is much, much, better served by looking after the interests of that 90% than that 10%.

One of the things that players realize is that the bottom 10% of their league, and I hate to use the term, are sort of migratory anyway. They're the guys who get bounced down to the AHL. The PA reacting in a panic to the prospect of those jobs disappearing would be like the PA demanding that owners not be allowed to replace their 4th liners from year to year with better players so that same bottom 10% has a sense of job security.

Even though I think you're exaggerating about just how "in danger" some of these teams are the reality is the Union has more responsibility to the guys who are going to be in the league 5, 6 or 7 years than they do to the tail end of the league.

 

[TML fan]

The players should just start their own league.

I'm not sure if you are serious but in the off chance you are, why? I've been locked out before and the thought of working elsewhere for nothing never once crossed my mind.

Why would they be working for nothing?

 

[maplesyrup]

The players should just start their own league.

I'm not sure if you are serious but in the off chance you are, why? I've been locked out before and the thought of working elsewhere for nothing never once crossed my mind.

Why would they be working for nothing?

Who would pay them? They'd simply collect at a gate? I don't see it. I mean, what gate? Where could they possibly play that would be big enough to cover such things as insurance and travel? 

 

[TML fan]

The players should just start their own league.

I'm not sure if you are serious but in the off chance you are, why? I've been locked out before and the thought of working elsewhere for nothing never once crossed my mind.

Why would they be working for nothing?

Who would pay them? They'd simply collect at a gate? I don't see it. I mean, what gate? Where could they possibly play that would be big enough to cover such things as insurance and travel?

How does any league start? How do they make money now?

 

[maplesyrup]

The players should just start their own league.

I'm not sure if you are serious but in the off chance you are, why? I've been locked out before and the thought of working elsewhere for nothing never once crossed my mind.

Why would they be working for nothing?

Who would pay them? They'd simply collect at a gate? I don't see it. I mean, what gate? Where could they possibly play that would be big enough to cover such things as insurance and travel?

How does any league start? How do they make money now?

I don't know. About 10 out of 30 do (not a very good ratio)... Ask them I guess.  :-\

 

[maplesyrup]

Also, do you think they'd all agree how to split whatever profits they got? I don't know, it's a nice idea but the reality is that it's just way to complicated to execute and it perhaps more importantly, way to risky for the players. - Financially, legally, physically and so on...

 

[TML fan]

Well then, I suppose I'll just go back to not giving a crap.

 

[Hampreacher]

I hope they learn lesson of NFL lockout. Owners gambled and lost. Now they settled and saved face. If owners gamble and have a long lockout they will lose fans in US they willnever get back. Especially in small market cities. They will not be able to save face.

 

[hockeyfan1]

I hope they learn lesson of NFL lockout. Owners gambled and lost. Now they settled and saved face. If owners gamble and have a long lockout they will lose fans in US they willnever get back. Especially in small market cities. They will not be able to save face.

I hope they learn lesson of NFL lockout. Owners gambled and lost. Now they settled and saved face. If owners gamble and have a long lockout they will lose fans in US they willnever get back. Especially in small market cities. They will not be able to save face.

I hope they learn lesson of NFL lockout. Owners gambled and lost. Now they settled and saved face. If owners gamble and have a long lockout they will lose fans in US they willnever get back. Especially in small market cities. They will not be able to save face.

That is unfortunately a very real possibility.