2012 CBA Negotiations Thread

[Chev-boyar-sky]

Yes it's entirely possible, but it's also possible that a couple teams get moved(see Phoenix). So, while they shouldn't be spending alot of time focusing on those numbers, it is still a revenue that the NHL took in last season.

Sure, but, it represented less than 2% of last season's revenue, and it was the only time that it happened under the last CBA. Based on looking at the league, I really only see one team that has a strong possibility of relocating under the next one - Phoenix - if the league can find a buyer that can actually make it work. The Coyotes may not even be sold by the time the upcoming CBA expires.

Really, we're discussing something that represents a fraction of a percentage of revenue over the life of the CBA. Something that has no material impact on either sides' bottom lines. It's as close to a non-issue as we can get here. Expansion may be a larger issue, but, again, until it's something that's legitimately on the table, it's also a non-issue. There's a reason the items in revenue sharing in CBA are classified as a "non-exhaustive list." When these things come up, the PA is well within their rights to them with the league and come to an agreement there. There's no sense in bogging down these negotiations by discussing these things that may not happen before the CBA expires.

I'm not sure it's a huge issue but at the same time it's something to consider.

If and when Phoenix is sold the League will not only receive 50-80M if they relocate, but they'll get 100-150M for the team (as they're the owners). That on top of the 60-80M from Winnipeg and the potential for other teams to relocate/expansion and we're talking about 210M on the low end and 310M on the high end before new teams/relocations come to light.

That's not an insignificant amount of money that the players don't get a sniff of. If we're talking about 300-500M that separates the two sides over the life of the coming CBA, then this issue is one that's worth bringing up, if only to put the owners in their place.

 

[bustaheims]

If and when Phoenix is sold the League will not only receive 50-80M if they relocate, but they'll get 100-150M for the team (as they're the owners). That on top of the 60-80M from Winnipeg and the potential for other teams to relocate/expansion and we're talking about 210M on the low end and 310M on the high end before new teams/relocations come to light.

I'm not sure that part's 100% accurate. The Phoenix situation is complicated. The league operates the team right now, but they may not actually receive the cash that would come in from a sale. I'm pretty sure Moyes would still get a chunk of it, as would any other major creditors (one of which is the league, but, that money wouldn't be revenue either - it would be repayment of a loan) and such. I imagine cw could shed some better light on the situation, as he's probably the best acquainted with it. Also, the Winnipeg money is a non-issue, since it's already been received by the league. It's no longer revenue, it's now part of cash flow (or whatever the league invested it in/split it up/whatever).

It may be something to consider, but, it's something that needs to be considered on a case by case basis, as these situations tend to be very complex and unique.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

If and when Phoenix is sold the League will not only receive 50-80M if they relocate, but they'll get 100-150M for the team (as they're the owners). That on top of the 60-80M from Winnipeg and the potential for other teams to relocate/expansion and we're talking about 210M on the low end and 310M on the high end before new teams/relocations come to light.

I'm not sure that part's 100% accurate. The Phoenix situation is complicated. The league operates the team right now, but they may not actually receive the cash that would come in from a sale. I'm pretty sure Moyes would still get a chunk of it, as would any other major creditors (one of which is the league, but, that money wouldn't be revenue either - it would be repayment of a loan) and such. I imagine cw could shed some better light on the situation, as he's probably the best acquainted with it. Also, the Winnipeg money is a non-issue, since it's already been received by the league. It's no longer revenue, it's now part of cash flow (or whatever the league invested it in/split it up/whatever).

It may be something to consider, but, it's something that needs to be considered on a case by case basis, as these situations tend to be very complex and unique.

The League bought the team from Moyes in Oct. 2009 for $140M.

They recently sued Moyes for $61M for damages (creditors, Bankruptcy court costs).

I'd be very surprised, having paid $140M for the team, if the NHL didn't walk away with a very large chunk of that money when the team is sold.

 

[Bates]

It's a little hard to understand how the same players who are willing to go to Europe and play for basically for insurance on their NHL contracts are also willing to let a whole season go away over an instant 50/50 split. Especially when that split will still have them making an average of about $2 million per year. The salary is probably even higher when you consider it's the higher than average earners who are flocking to Europe.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

It's a little hard to understand how the same players who are willing to go to Europe and play for basically for insurance on their NHL contracts are also willing to let a whole season go away over an instant 50/50 split. Especially when that split will still have them making an average of about $2 million per year. The salary is probably even higher when you consider it's the higher than average earners who are flocking to Europe.

My guess is because it's a short-term thing for them to (a) stay in game shape; (b) have some money coming in, it's not going to be their long-term employment prospects.

 

[L K]

It's a little hard to understand how the same players who are willing to go to Europe and play for basically for insurance on their NHL contracts are also willing to let a whole season go away over an instant 50/50 split. Especially when that split will still have them making an average of about $2 million per year. The salary is probably even higher when you consider it's the higher than average earners who are flocking to Europe.

I'm also finding it hard to understand why all employees don't make minimum wage.  Because they should just be grateful that they have jobs.

 

[jdh1]

It's a little hard to understand how the same players who are willing to go to Europe and play for basically for insurance on their NHL contracts are also willing to let a whole season go away over an instant 50/50 split. Especially when that split will still have them making an average of about $2 million per year. The salary is probably even higher when you consider it's the higher than average earners who are flocking to Europe.

Not only that...but surely they can see that a whole bunch of teams are not making money when they see the empty seats.You would think that by going 50/50 and the rich teams throwing in money that they can float a 30 team league and keep as many players employed as possible.

 

[hockeyfan1]

#welovehockey @Yorkdae Mall (in Toronto) -- suddenly a hockey game breaks out...

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-lockout/2012/10/30/flash_mob_we_love_hockey/

 

[armche123]

START THE DAMN SEASON ALREADY! 

... thanks... I feel a little better.... :-\

 

[Redleaf]

START THE DAMN SEASON ALREADY! 

... thanks... I feel a little better.... :-\

How many pages will this thread get to before they reach an agreement? Anyone? My guess is 100  :-\

 

[Frank E]

Like I said, I think that's an ill-fitting and simplistic dichotomy here. Players are not simply labour. They're product. If we're trying to work out what's "right" or "fair" then we have to acknowledge the difference between a guy working on an assembly line and someone who's on the cover of magazines, selling jerseys with his name on them.

You've said this before, and I have to disagree.

The product is hockey games.  The players play the games just like actors play roles in movies.  The product is still the movie, not the actor.

The fans cheer for their team usually more than they cheer for players...that's why year after year we cheer for the Leafs, even though the roster has turned over.

I don't disagree that the players play a large part in promoting the product, but they are not the product.  The players help produce the product, along with the management and ownership.

 

[Kin]

You've said this before, and I have to disagree.

The product is hockey games.  The players play the games just like actors play roles in movies.  The product is still the movie, not the actor.

It's interesting you use that analogy because that's the same one that I would use to prove my point. Ask anyone connected to the movie business what is easier to sell "I have a really great script" or "I have a lousy script, but Will Smith is attached". When a movie has big stars in it, the movie is sold on that basis. How many directors go on late night talk shows? Moreover, how many people buy tickets specifically to see particular actors?

The fans cheer for their team usually more than they cheer for players...that's why year after year we cheer for the Leafs, even though the roster has turned over.

Alright, so that's why around not only the NHL but around sports leagues in general attendance for teams tends to be relatively constant regardless of how good the team is, right? Because I mean, the Islanders of the early 80's and the Islanders today are both still selling NHL games. The product is unchanged, so that explains the ever full Nassau Coliseum, right?  Same team, aren't they?

Leafs fans, I think you'd agree, do not represent the typical relationship that a hockey team has with their fanbase. Just about every other team in sports sells tickets on the basis of how good their players are. They sell Sidney Crosby, not a cartoon penguin logo.

 

[bustaheims]

They sell Sidney Crosby, not a cartoon penguin logo.

But, at the same time, the fans follow and root for the what the cartoon penguin logo represents, not necessarily for the individuals wearing it. If Crosby left the Pens, the fans in Pittsburgh wouldn't follow him to another team. It's the logo on the front that creates the loyalty, not the name on the back. Hockey is the product. The players dictate the quality of it, but, hockey is still the product. People don't go to watch bad teams because they don't want to pay for a poorly produced product.

 

[moon111]

If you go to basic marketing you have product, price, place, and promotion.  MLSE dictates the price, the place, promotion, and the product.  The Leafs can promote Bozak as the #1center all they want, I'm not buying.  Not all fans will follow no matter what.  My t.v. went off with or without the lockout...Leafs would suck this year.  My father-in-law will buy nothing but GM vehicles.  Great promotion in either case, but it's still not the product.

 

[Kin]

But, at the same time, the fans follow and root for the what the cartoon penguin logo represents, not necessarily for the individuals wearing it.

But the logo on the front, at it's core, only really represents that the Penguins are a team in the NHL and as such they represent the highest quality of hockey that a fan in Pittsburgh can go see. That, again, is dictated by the quality of the players.

If Crosby left the Pens, the fans in Pittsburgh wouldn't follow him to another team. It's the logo on the front that creates the loyalty, not the name on the back.

I disagree with both statements, certainly in terms of totalities. It's the quality of the team that draws the crowd and, then, creates the loyalty or sometimes not. The Panthers in '96 didn't start drawing crowds because people noticed how snazzy the logo was. Fans started coming because their players were playing well. Likewise, lots of fans come to a team because of a specific player. How many Swedish fans do the Leafs have? Why is that?

And I think you're ignoring the reality of the modern fanbase. If the Penguins are on NBC or if the Penguins are playing the Oilers on a TSN late game, I'm not a Penguins fan but I'm far more inclined to watch that game entirely because of the players in it. National TV broadcasts are very important to a league's bottom line. The NBA didn't open last night with Heat-Celtics and Lakers-Mavericks because people love those teams. They did it so they could sell Lebron and Kobe and on and on to achieve the broadest possible audience because they know that fans tune in to watch specific players.

Hockey is the product. The players dictate the quality of it, but, hockey is still the product. People don't go to watch bad teams because they don't want to pay for a poorly produced product.

See the problem there is that if the product were just "hockey" then there'd be no reason why the NHL would outdraw the ECHL or the AHL. The product is the highest quality hockey which is, again, dictated by the players. If you want to say the players aren't the product they just entirely dictate the quality of the product, I mean, I don't think that changes my point.

If we're comparing the league to a restaurant, the players are the food, not the waitstaff.

 

[bustaheims]

See the problem there is that if the product were just "hockey" then there'd be no reason why the NHL would outdraw the ECHL or the AHL. The product is the highest quality hockey which is, again, dictated by the players. If you want to say the players aren't the product they just entirely dictate the quality of the product, I mean, I don't think that changes my point.

But the ECHL, AHL, etc aren't the highest quality hockey - the NHL is. These leagues have lower quality players, lower quality arenas, and offer a lower quality experience. They have a lower quality staff that produces a lower quality product.

If we're comparing the league to a restaurant, the players are the food, not the waitstaff.

No, the players are the chefs.

 

[Rebel_1812]

No. Teams being sold are not included as HRR, because the revenue generated by a sale does not go to the league or the resulting group of owners. It goes to a (now) outside entity.

But I think the relatively valid point being made is that the players are contributing to the increase in value of these properties, which is a large reason why someone might have for buying into the league, and not seeing any of those monies.

More importantly this revenue is very valid when you consider the money losing teams of the league.  If either Nashville or Phoenix had been able to sell to Basille, those owners might have overall made money on businesses that were losing money year after year.  Therefore, this is a valid counter point to the owners crying poor.

 

[Kin]

But the ECHL, AHL, etc aren't the highest quality hockey - the NHL is. These leagues have lower quality players, lower quality arenas, and offer a lower quality experience. They have a lower quality staff that produces a lower quality product.

But that's my point. The product that the NHL is selling is fundamentally different. It's not "hockey".

No, the players are the chefs.

Fine, great. I like that even better, especially these days. When investors were looking to bring the Momofuku brand to Toronto it would have been ridiculously ill-informed and simplistic to call their negotiation with David Chang one between "labour" and "management".

 

[Frank E]

But the ECHL, AHL, etc aren't the highest quality hockey - the NHL is. These leagues have lower quality players, lower quality arenas, and offer a lower quality experience. They have a lower quality staff that produces a lower quality product.

But that's my point. The product that the NHL is selling is fundamentally different. It's not "hockey".

No, the players are the chefs.

Fine, great. I like that even better, especially these days. When investors were looking to bring the Momofuku brand to Toronto it would have been ridiculously ill-informed and simplistic to call their negotiation with David Chang one between "labour" and "management".

Just jumping in here, the NHL provides the best hockey, but the product is still hockey. 

I'm not suggesting the chef isn't a draw to help sell the hockey.  Just having Sydney Crosby walking around an arena isn't going to sell you any tickets, he's got to produce something....that something is great hockey.

Crosby needs an arena, a league of teams to play against, teammates, and a management team to take care of everything else in order to produce great hockey.

 

[bustaheims]

Fine, great. I like that even better, especially these days. When investors were looking to bring the Momofuku brand to Toronto it would have been ridiculously ill-informed and simplistic to call their negotiation with David Chang one between "labour" and "management".

Doesn't change that fact that he's an employee (though, in the case of restaurants, things get a little muddled and he's likely an owner as well), and the restaurant wouldn't succeed if he and his staff weren't producing a high quality product. High-end chefs become brands because of the quality of their product. Athletes can do the same, but, the product is still what they do, not who they are.