Cba Facts Vs. Myths

[SKscout]

Figured that this deserved it's own topic simply because the article itself has potential for a LOT of disucssion

http://www.nhlpa.com/news/headlines/details/2012/09/04/setting-the-record-straight-cba-myths-vs.-facts

This was good for a laugh to me at least.

Let’s examine the “facts” not blinded by the union goggles eh.

Point 1

That move from 43% to 46% for the players means that the owners are now asking for 370 M of their dollars back. That means they are willing to pay the players 90 M more than they initially proposed. I would say that counts as a meaningful concession, especially considering that they are likely to settle in the 50-50 range as we all know and thus will be only asking for 250 M back from the players in the end. Moving a whopping 210 M back into the players pockets from their opening statements

Point 2

Yes the owners have the choice to lock out the players or not, however the players have a choice to negotiate with the owners or not as well. It takes two to fight OR co-operate. The owners are likely to continue to pay the players at the current agreement IF it looked like there was going to be a break through on negotiations. Considering the players drug their heels as long as possible to ensure that there was no time for this to happen I would say this is called sleeping in the bed you made. And yes you did not consider a strike but if you are locked out you CAN’T consider a strike.

Point 3

You make me laugh, you have run these negotiations to the brink because you felt it was in your best interest. Now that the owners have decided to dig in their heels you have been caught of guard a little I would say. When you “refuse to accept outrageous demands” and more importantly refuse to accept that in the end the owner was a reduction in your salary regardless then yeah I would say you are part of the problem. Negotiating isn’t simply sitting there and saying “mine”, “mine”, “mine” over again like freaking rainman.

Point 4

Revenue sharing IS a non issue. Look as a business the league should expect to share the TV and advertising contracts that are made with the LEAGUE evenly but by and large it should be up to the individual teams to survive in their own markets. Owners of a business need to do what is in the best interest of their business to keep the lights on and people working. The league is using the saved salary to increase revenue sharing. Players it’s better that you all have jobs than for 4 teams to fold and leave 120 or so of you unemployed right? Sure the Crosby’s of the league will get their payday but there are a lot of guys who are looking at a 3-4 (4 to 8 million) dollar window for their time in the league. These guys will not have jobs AND the skilled players will be concentrated more on teams, you will be easier to find and trade and thus you will be worth less than you are right now (simple supply and demand). To expect the league to become a communal collective of companies but pay you at capitalist market value is simple silly, the end of that road is financial ruin.

Point 5

Considering how fast the cap has moved and how difficult it is for many teams to stay financially solvent AND competitive it is imperative that the league reduce costs. With player salaries being equal to 57% of all income (and thus likely a far larger % of actual expense once margin is factored) it makes logical sense to look for you biggest and best savings right there.

In the end this article was good for a laugh in my books but on the whole very disingenuous (surprise! .. . NOT).

To their credit I think the players have some good ideas (capping non-player staff salaries is a great one for starters) but on the whole it’s living in a magical fairyland where the NHL is not the 4th (at BEST) choice sport for most North American Viewers.

The league doesn’t generate the majority of the teams funding through advertising like the NHL say, and it simply doesn’t have the financial clout the other leagues possess. It is largely driven on ticket and merch sales and if we want to keep those costs affordable (they are barely so now) then costs have to come down. To simply expect the teams that are very profitable to hand over sizable chunks of their reward for their good work (ie profit) to teams that are either poorly managed or poorly placed (often both) is ridiculous. I will be willing to accept that as a “solution” the day that Sidney Crosby is willing to sign over a large percentage of his endorsement contracts over to the Trevor Dailey's of the NHL.

[Flyerfan52]

On point 2, playing the season without a CBA gives the players the hammer as they could emulate baseball (under Fehr's leadership) & walk just before playoffs (the only time some teams make money).

[SKscout]

Oh for sure.

In fact that is what the NHLPA did in 1992. The strike risked playoffs and playoff revenue so that was the players hammer.

Having been hit with once already I think that it is reasonable that the League would not let the players pummel them with it again. To expect otherwise is simply silly.

The wool has been pulled off the eyes of the public in regards to unions and their real objectives across the board the NHLPA has yet to realize that however. This is a PR battle they simply can't win when it's about them wanting more money.

IF the NHLPA was battling for worker safety or some similar issue they would probably have plenty of support but when you have guys who are very well compensated for what they do (and would still be even if they took 100% of the owners initial proposal) the average Joe Hockey fan is not really going to be on their side.

[Flyerfan52]

No kidding.

Also, any revenue sharing is something to be worked out by the owners. The teams that make money are the 1s giving away part of their revenue to try to keep the league as a whole healthy. A bigger, more solvent league provides the NHLPA with more jobs for their members but they are not the 1s paying the freight. If the owners decided to contract the money losers it would probably keep the HRR @ current levels but there would be fewer players splitting their % of the pot.

I still hope the spear carriers release that losing a year of a short career (or their whole career if the owners decide to contract a few teams) will cost them more then the current demands will net them. They are the majority & have more to lose then the stars who will be snapping up the alternative openings if there is a lockout.

We also hear about how this uncertainty is putting RFA signings on hold but they mention only the name players (who know they will get contracts) but the 4th liners have their whole lives on hold.

The name UFAs already have their contracts but the lesser lights aren't even sure they'll get another. If this is resolved they will likely get @ least another year or 2 of the better then the real world salary but a year @ the tail end of their career could well be the siren song for that career.

This vein of thought is what keeps me confident we'll have a full season. I can imagine the majority starting to sweat about the $s they personally stand to lose. They can talk about being united but the circumstances of the players vary widely & self interest is a powerful incentive.

[DL44]

Figured that this deserved it's own topic simply because the article itself has potential for a LOT of disucssion

http://www.nhlpa.com/news/headlines/details/2012/09/04/setting-the-record-straight-cba-myths-vs.-facts

This was good for a laugh to me at least.

Let’s examine the “facts” not blinded by the union goggles eh.

Point 1

Point 2

Point 3.

Point 4

Point 5

In the end this article was good for a laugh in my books but on the whole very disingenuous (surprise! .. . NOT).

To their credit I think the players have some good ideas (capping non-player staff salaries is a great one for starters) but on the whole it’s living in a magical fairyland where the NHL is not the 4th (at BEST) choice sport for most North American Viewers.

The league doesn’t generate the majority of the teams funding through advertising like the NHL say, and it simply doesn’t have the financial clout the other leagues possess. It is largely driven on ticket and merch sales and if we want to keep those costs affordable (they are barely so now) then costs have to come down. To simply expect the teams that are very profitable to hand over sizable chunks of their reward for their good work (ie profit) to teams that are either poorly managed or poorly placed (often both) is ridiculous. I will be willing to accept that as a “solution” the day that Sidney Crosby is willing to sign over a large percentage of his endorsement contracts over to the Trevor Dailey's of the NHL.

My take on their points...

Point 1... Players have a point... owners referencing the first extreme lowball offer as a starting point and claiming a concession was made with the second is misleading. But don't let that take away from the fact the second offer seemed to be a very reasonable starting point.

Point 2... agreed with your take.

Point 3... An attempt of damage control the Bettman comment initially solicited. Semantics... I say potato you say stonewalling. Spin from both sides is on display here.

Point 4... Spin. I agree with the players' principle point about the significance of revenue sharing.. But what Bettman was saying with that statement (which Daley has since clarified) is that the NHL's last proposal brought revenue sharing into the same ballpark, and the sides aren't significantly off (150-190mil VS 200-250mil). So to me further discussion seems pointless when they haven't worked out a HRR spit to know how much of the pie they'll have to revenue share with.

Point 5... God i hate that argument.. a statement about the rollback and the owners getting what they wanted without any acknowledgement of the players hitting their escalators and raising players' back up to 57%. What was their approximate share prior to the last lockout?

And the claim that the players have offered real concessions is true... but notice the IF.

if the revenue plateaus or dips for example due to damage a lockout may cause... players could make even a greater share than their present 57%. Not quite the definition of a 'real' concession imo.

Overall.. the article restates what we've heard from Fehr in his post-meeting pressers.. so it was a good move on their part to put it all together in one release for people to chew on.

I would love to see a counter article by the owners shredding each of their points... but we won't. Owners know they don't need to... the public (like we are doing in this thread) will do it for them. Everyone likes to pick these releases apart to show the logical flaws... why would the owners feed that discussion?

They're not as interested in the PR side as the players would be.

[cross16]

I would love to see a counter article by the owners shredding each of their points... but we won't. Owners know they don't need to... the public (like we are doing in this thread) will do it for them. Everyone likes to pick these releases apart to show the logical flaws... why would the owners feed that discussion?

They're not as interested in the PR side as the players would be.

Becuase, IMO at least, players always lose at that right off the bad. Majority of fans always look at these players playing a kids game and the millions of dollars they get for it and feel they should take whatever the owners want just on the basis it is a game. I would say a small minority of fans actually view it as a partnership and approach it as they would their own careers/livelihood. It's almost impossible for the players to win a PR battle and I think they saw that in the last lockout and it's why they've gone out of their way to try and at least gain some ground this time around.

[UKFlamer]

... playoffs (the only time some teams make money).

And that's a perfect example of why things need to change. No teams should be reliant on making the play-offs to make money. This clearly demonstrates that too much money is going to the players. How would the players feel if they were told you wont get paid unless you make the play-offs?

[Invin]

There's a poll on TSN.ca right now asking if you side with the players or owners, and last I saw it was 54.3% in favor of the players, which I found surprising. I think a lot of people (judging from comments I've seen around facebook and elsewhere) don't actually know anything about the numbers or proposals, and are simply going by the "BOOOOO I HATE BETTMAN!" mentality instead of examining the deal closely. I imagine they'll eat up this NHLPA article and quote it left and right without even looking at the league's side.

When I see the players being interviewed they sound like puppets sometimes... just a blank stare, as you can see them thinking, "Now what did Fehr tell us... oh right! Our deal is fair and solves everything." Surely some (probably the guys without multi-million dollar long term contracts with massive bonuses) are thinking for themselves but can't say anything for fear of damaging the solidarity they're told they have.

I like your point siliconscout about the players wanting the league to operate communally but pay them capitalistically.

I bet a lot of the players at the bottom of the totem pole wouldn't feel so united if they knew they'd be out of a job due to teams folding because the guys making multi-millions didn't want to give up a small slice of their payday. I wonder how much riding the bus in the minors for the love of the game it would take before 50/50 revenue sharing didn't sound so bad back on the jet with all the complimentary comforts.

[Flyerfan52]

There's a poll on TSN.ca right now asking if you side with the players or owners, and last I saw it was 54.3% in favor of the players, which I found surprising. I think a lot of people (judging from comments I've seen around facebook and elsewhere) don't actually know anything about the numbers or proposals, and are simply going by the "BOOOOO I HATE BETTMAN!" mentality instead of examining the deal closely. I imagine they'll eat up this NHLPA article and quote it left and right without even looking at the league's side.

When I see the players being interviewed they sound like puppets sometimes... just a blank stare, as you can see them thinking, "Now what did Fehr tell us... oh right! Our deal is fair and solves everything." Surely some (probably the guys without multi-million dollar long term contracts with massive bonuses) are thinking for themselves but can't say anything for fear of damaging the solidarity they're told they have.

I like your point siliconscout about the players wanting the league to operate communally but pay them capitalistically.

I bet a lot of the players at the bottom of the totem pole wouldn't feel so united if they knew they'd be out of a job due to teams folding because the guys making multi-millions didn't want to give up a small slice of their payday. I wonder how much riding the bus in the minors for the love of the game it would take before 50/50 revenue sharing didn't sound so bad back on the jet with all the complimentary comforts.

All very true.

On the boards we discuss the pros & cons (intelligently IMO) of both sides proposals. The casual fans seem to absorb whatever pap the media feeds them (& the media lives on sensationalism). @ least we are getting various imputs (media through links & each others perspective).

Even the BoG (via the Gnome) & members of the NHLPA (from their feckless leader Fehr) seem to be getting very slanted input & not giving the various points due consideration.

[returnofthejets]

There's a poll on TSN.ca right now asking if you side with the players or owners, and last I saw it was 54.3% in favor of the players, which I found surprising.

This time around most fans aren't as sympathetic to the owners. Last time around many canadian fans had been seeing their top players lost due to big $$$ elsewhere or had already seen their entire team relocated due to several factors that all related to $$$. So as tough as losing an entire season was it was much easier to back the owners as it was more about backing your teams survival than the survival of an individual.

But this time around there isn't any major issue on the board like a salary cap that helps even out the playing field. These current negotiations don't have canadian teams or it's top players hanging in the balance to the same degree. Fans have seen ticket prices and merchandise costs rise to all time highs and know that when the dust settles that will all stay the same. Teams have continued to hand out contracts right up to the last moment that continue to push the envelope. It's hard to feel or side with these business tycoons when they themselves can't seem to control their spending in our eyes.

Many fans, like myself, see that when everything is solved, and hopefully it's soon, there won't be much change to the cost of being a fan, there won't be a roll back on my ticket or merchandise costs, so a 50/50 revenue share between the owners and players seems fair by me, once those dollars leave our wallets it doesn't matter which hand it lands in because the game will cost the same.