Skip to main content
Update
Non-financial boards have been closed.

Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.

Fool.com | The Motley Fool Community
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 1
Can somebody explain to me a scenario whereby the NHLPA is going to get an un-linked salary cap above $42M?

The only one I can think of is as follows.

- NHL Owners go to replacement players
- Attendance suffers strong teams average under 7500 fans; weak teams under 2500 fans
- Less than 20% of the current NHL players play
- This continues past February of next year

While not an impossible scenario this is not likely in my opinion. If I were the PA I would counter the current $37M offer with a $43M unlinked offer right now. This would probably cost Goodenow his job however.

tecmo
...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
They CAN'T win. If they hold out for an unlinked cap, even at $43 mil, they either won't get it or the attendance and ratings will be so low that the teams will lose their asses at that level, and some teams will go broke in a couple years, costing some fringe players their jobs. The stars will always make their millions, even if it's far fewer millions than before, but they'll always be there. It will be the 3rd and 4th liners who will take it in the shorts and find themselves in Europe, riding the buses or out of hockey altogether while the bigshots continue to get relatively rich. If the 3rd and 4th liners are smart, they will either demand that the NHLPA accept any deal they can get, or will break ranks and cross the picket lines if the owners use scab players. It's time that the rank and file guys stand up for themselves and stop letting the overpaid elite dictate how the union is run.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
If the 3rd and 4th liners are smart, they will either demand that the NHLPA accept any deal they can get, or will break ranks and cross the picket lines if the owners use scab players.

Don't call'em scabs, if the "union" players can gas the European players out of a job then turn-a-bout is fair play...Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I don't think they can win. I think the owners are literally going for broke. If they pull it off getting the green light to start the season with replacement players from the courts..... they aren't backing down. Hockey is a side hobby for most owners. They can absorb the losses over a time. What they are putting their foot down on.... is their teams being a perpetual money pit. I think they will shut it down if the players don't come around and they lose money in a big way for a season or two.

So, in my opinion (and if in their shoes I would) they will go all the way to blow up the current reality that their teams are money losers year in and year out. The fact they can weather the storm and absorb the losses means they hold the cards. They are smart enough to know that. Keith Tkachuk will be missing his paychecks far sooner than the owners will. Further, Keith Tkachuk is not a charity case... his pay should represent an investment in profitable production. The owners understand that sort of thing about businesses.

Personally, I think it will take watching "scabs" play next season for the players to get it. But, I think they will.... and I think their paychecks will be lower than they would have if they wouldn't have dug their heels in demanding to drink from a dry well. And if so.... GOOD!!!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Don't call'em scabs, if the "union" players can gas the European players out of a job then turn-a-bout is fair play...Pete

They're scabs. Same as the baseball and football scab players of the past.

Regardless of your feelings about the legitimacy of their union, a scab is a scab.

mick
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
They can't win and they won't.

Hockey fans will - in the end and as usual - end up being the only ones who pay any penalty.

The current league thinking is to stock rosters with low level minor leaguers. This will keep all pro-level and NHL owned prospects off the ice. So, it'll be ECHL and UHL level players that we will be paying pro-level dollars to see. Unfortunately, there will likely be no other way since the league thought of lifting the lockout for players who earned less than $1MM in 2003-2004 would never hold up in court.

Will ticket prices go down? Concession prices? Parking? Merchandise? Of course not.

This is a long way off, of course, since the league hasn't even figured out what its long term plan is. There is currently no full scale proposal on the table, as a proxy for a CBA, which the league will need in order to declare an impasse.

But what's the rush? We're only seven months into the lockout. The owners last regressive offer didn't even contain details of the amended revenue sharing plan. Instead, it made vague reference to past offers and philosophies. That offer, an almost 12% reduction from the previous one, isn't even proportionally tied to a revenue sharing plan. In fact, the offer vaguely refers to a complete phase out of revenue sharing over the course of the agreement.

So, ultimately, the league's top 6 teams in terms of profitability will account for almost 90% of the entire leagues operating profit. Is that a well thought-out plan designed to ensure the health and viability of all franchises? Of course not. So, what exactly is the league trying to accomplish? It's not revenue balance, obviously and it's not the long term viability of the league. So, what is it, other than the vague notion that most owners would like to pay the players less?

We can knock the players all we want. Yes, they are overpaid. Yes, they are whining bastards who only care about themselves. Yes, they are currently taking jobs away from hard working and deserving players in Europe and that's wrong. But can we please dispense with the nonsense that just because the players are whining, overpaid, spoiled asses, that the owners are somehow right, or more laughably, somehow morally correct?

This is about money. Both parties are guilty. Spin it however you want, but recognize that's all you're doing. Both sides are completely and equally full of crap.

mick
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
But can we please dispense with the nonsense that just because the players are whining, overpaid, spoiled asses, that the owners are somehow right, or more laughably, somehow morally correct?


I'll admit (that while I shake my head in disbelief at both parties) that I have leaned towards the owners side more times than not. But believe me when I say that it's not because I think that the owners are right or (justifiably laughable) morally correct.

[One second. Owners. Morally correct. Bwahahahahaa.]

Okay I'm back.

The reason I lean towards the owners side is simply because they hold all the cards, or at least they can conceal them for a much longer time before having to fold. I feel for the players. Most of them aren't business-minded folk. They're Hockey players and they hired Bob Goodenow to take care of their NHLPA-related interests. Unfortunately, good old Bobby has led the players down a slippery slope trying to push a boulder up a greased hill.

The title of the thread asks, "How can the NHLPA win?" They can't win, yet they drink to the Pied Piper Koresh Kool Aid and believe they can. Or at least they're being forced to believe it. That's where I find fault. The best offer they could have received is long gone -- and even the worst case offer is better than not playing and letting the much-storied legacy of the NHL fall apart at the seams. If there are players who are so concerned about the NHL as slave labour, then maybe those players should have studied a little harder and gone to business school instead.

Unfortunately there are some players who would have accepted the previous offer(s) and they're being taken along for the Rah-rah ride.


Keith...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
The best offer they could have received is long gone -- and even the worst case offer is better than not playing and letting the much-storied legacy of the NHL fall apart at the seams.


I agree, Keith. The players have made a huge mistake in following Goodenow and they will literally pay a steep price.

That said, and as stupid as the players are, the blame for letting the much-storied legacy of the NHL fall apart at the seams falls squarely on the shoulders of Bettman - a lawyer and businessman who knows nothing of the sport and its history - and the owners.

It is a damn, damn shame.

mick
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well here's hoping they can fix this f'ing mess before it gets to screwed up and really becomes a fringe sport.

watched the Wolverine game the other night, better than pro I thought...Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
We can knock the players all we want. Yes, they are overpaid. Yes, they are whining bastards who only care about themselves. Yes, they are currently taking jobs away from hard working and deserving players in Europe and that's wrong. But can we please dispense with the nonsense that just because the players are whining, overpaid, spoiled asses, that the owners are somehow right, or more laughably, somehow morally correct?

This is about money. Both parties are guilty. Spin it however you want, but recognize that's all you're doing. Both sides are completely and equally full of crap.


There is no spin about it. The owners lose money largely due to the current pay structure of the players. The players have never disputed that. The owners are trying to change that reality. And, sure they are trying to cut the very best deal they can, while they are at the bargaining table. The owners get the blame for where they are. They continued to pay players more then their production value. This resulted in an unprofitable business. The owners have recognized that and are demanding changes to right those past wrongs. The players get the blame for ignoring where they are and refusing to acknowledge the owners are unwilling to stay at the place they currently are, perpetual operating losses. The players are not entitled to above production value by the mere fact they were paid it in the past. Past stupidity by the owners does not dictate that they continue to operate their businesses like morons.

It isn't about any "moral high ground". It is about the owners refusing to open their wallets any more, and putting in place the measures to make it so. This isn't about union workers fighting to keep their healthcare coverage. It is about a group of overpaid babies refusing to accept reality. If their pig headed demands for above production value for services results in the owners ramming a sub production value deal down their throats.... I don't hardly care.

I'd think long and hard before telling my boss to stick it in his posterior orifice if he came to me with an economic reality of our company and the need to re-look at wages given the results he is seeing. Now he may have mismanaged the business and created the situation. But, I either accept that reality, or find something better.

I encourage the players to go find something better.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
They're scabs. Same as the baseball and football scab players of the past.

Regardless of your feelings about the legitimacy of their union, a scab is a scab.

mick


I'll take a "scab" over these jerks any day of the week. The problem I have with the players union is that they think they're bigger than the game. And that's just plain wrong.


bm
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
>>The problem..with the players union is that they think they're bigger than the game<<....the same could be said about the owners..."So let it be written, so let it be done"...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
What I find bizarre about sports unions is that they function like no other labour union (nurses, teachers, labourers, etc.) Most labour unions have rigid and clearly outlined pay structures that pay based on job grade and years of experience.

Unions in the sporting world, on the other hand, allow each player to negotiate their own contract with the team. This will undoubtedly allow the stars to sign juicy contracts (since it is perceived that they bring in the fans) and the journeyman players (which inevitably fill out your 20-man roster) will end up eating the cap.

Based on this I can certainly see a NHLPA mutiny before next Sept.

coldcanuck
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'll take a "scab" over these jerks any day of the week. The problem I have with the players union is that they think they're bigger than the game. And that's just plain wrong.

bm


I don't disgaree; however the owners suffer from the same affliction.

mick

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>The problem..with the players union is that they think they're bigger than the game<<....the same could be said about the owners..."So let it be written, so let it be done"...

Greeked!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't disgaree; however the owners suffer from the same affliction.,

Maybe we could get some scab owners, Gretzky and Lemieux excepted.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Those balloons look quite nice next to that big green star, mickaelangelo...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
thanks biker -

I maintain I'm the only one in all of TMF that actually looks good with a stupid green star

mick, self deluded
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Twenty THOUSAND posts.

WOW!

-NGR
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Twenty THOUSAND posts.

WOW!

-NGR



Sarcasman would have worked much better here.

mick
Print the post Back To Top