2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[Kin]

Except there really hasn't been a threat to shut down because of current conditions.

The union has already publicly said they'll still play next season under the current conditions. The owners haven't. I don't think it really needs to be said past that.

 

[Rebel_1812]

That is why it is kind of hard for the owners to cry poor.  They keep making more money they just don't want the players to share in it.

Revenues have increased, but that doesn't necessarily mean profits have, since expenses have increased right along with them. There are still a number of teams that are losing money/barely breaking even.

Only because that rat like figure, Bettman, insists on keeping hockey in markets that don't want it.  Its not the players fault places like phoenix have never made money.  Its the owners fault.

 

[Bates]

Rebel do you think the players would vote in favor of getting rid of the numerous teams that don't make money and the 40 or 50 jobs that go with each?  Before you answer remember that 10 years ago 4 of those teams were in Canada and a sharp drop in the loonie might put them right back there.

 

[Kin]

Rebel do you think the players would vote in favor of getting rid of the numerous teams that don't make money and the 40 or 50 jobs that go with each?

If it made the league as a whole stronger? I think so. Keep in mind you'd be talking about the absolute bottom 20 guys in the league per team. That means that if one team gets cut then it would be guys like John Mitchell or worse looking for work.

Add in that we're not even necessarily talking about killing teams as opposed to relocating them into better markets and, yeah, I think the players could be talked into that.

 

[jdh1]

They could resolve this easy....50/50 split of the income...no more than 6 year contracts..and lets go play hockey.

 

[Corn Flake]

Except there really hasn't been a threat to shut down because of current conditions.

The union has already publicly said they'll still play next season under the current conditions. The owners haven't. I don't think it really needs to be said past that.

I wouldn't really take that from their silence but ok, sure.

I don't see where the league has any kind of leg to stand on when it comes to locking out the players, other than a technically expired deal.  Problem there is with the late expiration date in Sept, teams have loaded up for the season and sure aren't behaving as if there won't be hockey. If it had expired on June 30 and teams were frozen in terms of making roster moves and signings, I would be more inclined to agree with the threat of the season not starting being real. 

 

[Bates]

The thing is Nik there are no guarantees in these new markets.  Let's say you move Phx to Que like Atlanta did last year.  Now let the clock reset and the Canadian dollar drops back to the 75 or 80 cent range.  The NHL dollar wise would probably not be any better off than they are now.  And the question was for the players and I highly doubt they vote for Que or Winnipeg over Florida and Arizona.

 

[Bates]

Also Nik if teams went away it really isn't the worst 20 guys per team league wide.  While the teams will want the best players let's remember that there will still be a salary cay and unless the better players take less money than some of them will be out of work.

 

[Kin]

The thing is Nik there are no guarantees in these new markets.  Let's say you move Phx to Que like Atlanta did last year. 

Alright but that's starting with the assumption that Quebec City is the best possible fresh market for the NHL which I don't think is even remotely true.

 

[Kin]

Also Nik if teams went away it really isn't the worst 20 guys per team league wide.

It absolutely is. It's the guys who'd be filling out the ends of the roster who'd be without work. Other guys would be bumped downwards.

Remember, the salary cap guarantees a percentage of revenues to the players as a collective. If there are 40 fewer guys around than the money that would have went to them gets redistributed.

 

[Bates]

But the money per team would remain around the same so while the 4th liners would go away you would now be expecting people to fall down the dept chart and receive less compensation.  Not sure players would see this as a gain.

 

[Kin]

But the money per team would remain around the same so while the 4th liners would go away you would now be expecting people to fall down the dept chart and receive less compensation.  Not sure players would see this as a gain.

Well, again, A) that's still working with the assumption that you're talking about contraction rather than relocation or contraction + expansion and B) if the argument being made is that fewer teams makes for a better game which makes for revenue growth then there would be long term benefits for all involved.

Anyways, let's do some math. In '11 the NHL reported revenues of 2.9 billion. The players share of that, at 57%, would be 1.65 or so. Split up evenly between thirty teams that's fifty five million a team.

If you cut out the two bottom feeders, in this case Phoenix and the Islanders, you'd have league revenues of 2.77 billion. 57% of that is 1.58 billion. Divided among the 28 teams that's...fifty six million per team.

 

[bustaheims]

Only because that rat like figure, Bettman, insists on keeping hockey in markets that don't want it.  Its not the players fault places like phoenix have never made money.  Its the owners fault.

The players aren't without their hand in this. Part of the reason smaller, less traditional markets haven't been successful financially is due to player costs - which is the single largest expense of any franchise.

And, it's not just markets that "don't want" hockey. By all accounts, the Sharks are a huge hit in San Jose. They are the only major league sports draw in the city and have a sizeable and passionate fan base, and yet, there are now reports that they're losing money. They're a middle of the pack revenue team - they don't draw from revenue sharing. They have solid attendance figures - playing to sold out or nearly sold out crowds for every home date. And, yet . . .

Kevin Compton and Stratton Sclavos, two of several individuals listed among the team?s ?ownership group,? help to represent an NHL club that has seemingly done everything right on the business side yet still falls short in terms of profit. In fact, it?s been reported that the club lost upwards of $15 million last season despite selling out HP Pavilion every night.

If mid-market teams like San Jose are struggling to balance being competitive on the ice and being financially stable, then there's a real problem that runs much deeper than market strength - one that has to do with the balance of revenues being split between the owners and the players.

 

[Kin]

If mid-market teams like San Jose are struggling to balance being competitive on the ice and being financially stable, then there's a real problem that runs much deeper than market strength - one that has to do with the balance of revenues being split between the owners and the players.

I fixed it for you.

 

[Frank E]

If mid-market teams like San Jose are struggling to balance being competitive on the ice and being financially stable, then there's a real problem that runs much deeper than market strength - one that has to do with the balance of revenues being split between the owners and the players.

I fixed it for you.

Is there a report that suggests how many of the teams in the league are currently profitable?

 

[seahawk]

I think the players would want to see the league increase revenue sharing before they agree to any reductions in revenue. I'd be in agreement with that but can't see certain owners agreeing to it. I also think the 6-7 year limit on contracts would be a good idea. You sign a guy to a 15 year contract and he gets hurt or just plays like trash. Teams end up stuck with a cap hit or a very long time.

 

[Kin]

You sign a guy to a 15 year contract and he gets hurt or just plays like trash. Teams end up stuck with a cap hit or a very long time.

So they should probably stop signing contracts like that, right?

 

[Frank E]

You sign a guy to a 15 year contract and he gets hurt or just plays like trash. Teams end up stuck with a cap hit or a very long time.

So they should probably stop signing contracts like that, right?

Yep.  The owners handing out these contracts can live with the consequences...that's the risk.  I don't have a problem with that.

Is anybody advocating a luxury tax instead of a hard cap?

 

[jonlleafs]

You sign a guy to a 15 year contract and he gets hurt or just plays like trash. Teams end up stuck with a cap hit or a very long time.

So they should probably stop signing contracts like that, right?

Yep.  The owners handing out these contracts can live with the consequences...that's the risk.  I don't have a problem with that.

Is anybody advocating a luxury tax instead of a hard cap?

Well as a fan of the Leafs, I would be totally in favor of the luxury tax.  We should be able to be the NY Yankees of the NHL and buy championships.  It hasn't worked in the past you say?  Well, I think we have a lot more money than before the cap.  I remember self-imposed budget caps of around $60-70mil or so before the cap.  I'm sure if there were no cap, we'd spend up to $90-100mil if it meant winning the cup.

 

[Rebel_1812]

Rebel do you think the players would vote in favor of getting rid of the numerous teams that don't make money and the 40 or 50 jobs that go with each?  Before you answer remember that 10 years ago 4 of those teams were in Canada and a sharp drop in the loonie might put them right back there.

I think they should be relocated.  As the philospher Heraclitus noted the only constant is change.  The NHL should change to business enviroments. In terms of the Canadian teams the strong dollar did more to make them financial viable then the new CBA.  Furthermore, it isn't necessarily contraction that is needed.  Its more of putting hockey teams in markets that can support them.  It is a simple business concept of selling your product to people who want to buy it.  The head people at the NHL can't seem to understand this.  They believe that if they cut salaries enough that would somehow make Phoenix or Nashville better markets.  It won't.

If the NHL had NFL style revenue sharing, then teams like Phoenix or Nashville and the current CBA might be viable.  The real problems with the system is that the cap floor and ceiling is based on league revenue when only a few teams account for over half the league revenue.