NHL Lockout

[Hank Hill]

I'm also pissed that my hockey pool won't happen, that is the real sad story :cryin

Me too, I think i'm more dissapointed about no hockey pool, than no hockey!

[broken27]

Price fixing and collusion in order to restrain trade are illegal regardless of the existence of a union. The union makes it harder for them to do it without being caught, but that doesn't make it any more or less "illegal".

I find it interesting that many people seem to think "collusion" and "price fixing" are perfectly okay for the NHL to do, but horrendously unfair when the gas companies do it.

Sorry, was trying to be very brief in terms of collusion/price fixing explanations. Of course, the NHL could very easily set a cap without collusion if it were imposed by the league, rather than 30 teams. If only one person (the NHL) sets the "theoretical cap", then it's not collusion and there is nothing illegal about it, it's simply the rule for the league's subservient franchises to follow.

I don't support collusion, I support realism. If the NHLPA gets their way, owners will end up shutting down teams. Eventually, it will mean fewer jobs, so fewer salaries to pay with fewer revenues to pay them from. If I'm NHL player 'x', I'd be asking myself if making $2-million for a year is worth more than making $1-million for 3 years.

Dan

[g8r]

I find it interesting that many people seem to think "collusion" and "price fixing" are perfectly okay for the NHL to do, but horrendously unfair when the gas companies do it.

I'd have no problems with gas companies colluding to bring down gas prices. Its different because the owners would not be artificially increasing prices, rather decreasing them. The example would be more along the lines of companies colluding to pay employees less to decrease prices for a product, or to increase their profit. This needs to be included in the CBA. If the players are willing to take a pay cut, this should not simply pad the pockets of the owners, the fans should be paying less as well. There is a big difference between these two examples. Hockey's salary system is like the stock market, only they are still riding the high tech bubble. What needs to happen is that owner refuse to "buy" any player over $4-5 million and they'll have to lower their salary requests. The bubble needs to burst, bringing salaries and ticket prices down with them. I still find it hard to believe that anyone is worth $5 million/year to play any sport. I also find it hard to feel bad for guys making, at a minimum $375K (i think thats the minimum in the NHL?).

[el tigre]

If the players are willing to take a pay cut, this should not simply pad the pockets of the owners, the fans should be paying less as well.

I am always amazed at the number of people that believe prices are determined by costs.

In a capitalist society, prices are determined by supply and demand. Costs determine profits - not prices. If the market is not willing to pay a price higher than your cost (due to lack of demand or over-supply), you will go out of business. If the market is willing to pay a much higher price than your cost (high demand/low supply), you get rich.

Last year, the Senators increased their payroll, but decreased their ticket prices. Is Melnyk crazy? No, he's investing in his product while bringing his prices in line with demand.

IMHO, this lockout is simply the NHL's attempt to break the union - just like the NFL did many years ago. The NFL is the most successful and richest sports league in the world. ALL of the NFL owners are pretty much guaranteed to make money - the only question is how much. Has this success filtered down to the players? - no, they are the lowest paid athletes of any sport. Has this success meant lower prices for fans? - no, they pay outrageous ticket prices. Are fans better off? - no, owners constantly move teams regardless of fan support to increase their profits even more through better stadium deals.

[broken27]

I am always amazed at the number of people that believe prices are determined by costs.

In a capitalist society, prices are determined by supply and demand. Costs determine profits - not prices. If the market is not willing to pay a price higher than your cost (due to lack of demand or over-supply), you will go out of business. If the market is willing to pay a much higher price than your cost (high demand/low supply), you get rich.

That's a bit of over-simplification, though. The Economics 101 idea is that you have to reach an equilibrium point where supply and demand curves intersect to give you the maximum profitability. Cost does not determine anything on its own.

Last year, the Senators increased their payroll, but decreased their ticket prices. Is Melnyk crazy? No, he's investing in his product while bringing his prices in line with demand.

There was no drop in ticket prices really. There were "loss-leader" promotions offered to season ticket holders, but a lot of them required a longer term commitment from the purchaser. Melnyk's payroll increase is tied more to increasing demand, as hockey fans in Ottawa were becoming very fickle after the Bryden years. Winning is the best way to increase demand in this particular industry, provided the foundations for success are there (solid market, good business plan). At least that's how it was reported... Keep in mind that Melnyk bought $250-million worth of stuff for about $90-million...

The NFL is the most successful and richest sports league in the world. ALL of the NFL owners are pretty much guaranteed to make money - the only question is how much. Has this success filtered down to the players? - no, they are the lowest paid athletes of any sport. Has this success meant lower prices for fans? - no, they pay outrageous ticket prices. Are fans better off? - no, owners constantly move teams regardless of fan support to increase their profits even more through better stadium deals.

The NFL owners are under no circumstances guaranteed to make any money at all. They do, as a result of everything else you mentioned. But the ticket prices for NFL games are not outrageous as you would suggest. In every stadium there are ranges of prices, starting at much lower than the lowest NHL ticket and capping out much higher in the case of luxury boxes. Players are paid less on average because each team has far more of them to pay. The super-stars still get TONS of money (P. Manning, B. Favre, T. Owens et al), but it's easier to digest because of the NFL's soft cap and revenue sharing system. This system would not work if transplanted directly to the NHL because of the television deal disparity between the two leagues. The NFL has a multi-billion dollar long-term TV deal, while the NHL has a mere pittance in comparison.

NFL ticket avg - $50.02
NBA ticket avg - $44.68
NHL ticket avg - $44.22
MLB ticket avg - $19.82 (oddly Boston's ticket avg is over $50)
(all prices for 2003-04 season)

For the record, I'm not arguing against you el tigre, I'm just presenting my position with the best information I can. I spend a lot of time researching these things because of my career path into sports journalism....

Dan

[mkemila]

I'm sorry to say but I dont care anymore about hockey (NHL that is).
I used to alot but when grown men want 3 gazillion million dollars (in american money) with every concievable perk avialable to mankind, to play a game they say they love, and want more??? I'm done. I say shut the doors, lock them out for 5 years. Let them get real jobs for that amount of time, and let them see what it's like on the other side of the reality.

Steve you are a genius....that would make for the best comedy/reality show.....just try to pry me away from the set

[LobWedge]

That's a bit of over-simplification, though. The Economics 101 idea is that you have to reach an equilibrium point where supply and demand curves intersect to give you the maximum profitability. Cost does not determine anything on its own.


There was no drop in ticket prices really. There were "loss-leader" promotions offered to season ticket holders, but a lot of them required a longer term commitment from the purchaser. Melnyk's payroll increase is tied more to increasing demand, as hockey fans in Ottawa were becoming very fickle after the Bryden years. Winning is the best way to increase demand in this particular industry, provided the foundations for success are there (solid market, good business plan). At least that's how it was reported... Keep in mind that Melnyk bought $250-million worth of stuff for about $90-million...


The NFL owners are under no circumstances guaranteed to make any money at all. They do, as a result of everything else you mentioned. But the ticket prices for NFL games are not outrageous as you would suggest. In every stadium there are ranges of prices, starting at much lower than the lowest NHL ticket and capping out much higher in the case of luxury boxes. Players are paid less on average because each team has far more of them to pay. The super-stars still get TONS of money (P. Manning, B. Favre, T. Owens et al), but it's easier to digest because of the NFL's soft cap and revenue sharing system. This system would not work if transplanted directly to the NHL because of the television deal disparity between the two leagues. The NFL has a multi-billion dollar long-term TV deal, while the NHL has a mere pittance in comparison.

NFL ticket avg - $50.02
NBA ticket avg - $44.68
NHL ticket avg - $44.22
MLB ticket avg - $19.82 (oddly Boston's ticket avg is over $50)
(all prices for 2003-04 season)

For the record, I'm not arguing against you el tigre, I'm just presenting my position with the best information I can. I spend a lot of time researching these things because of my career path into sports journalism....

Dan

The NHL is a bloated, mis-managed, pig of a league whose time has, unfortunately, come. The league and the union seem content to sit back and let it die a slow and painful death without any regard for the fans. At one time I was pissed and wanted them all held at gunpoint until they resolved it, but now I just don't care anymore. The rent-a-player-buy-a Stanley-Cup mentality has taken the life out of the game.

They need to realize that there's only so much money to go around. The NFL and MLB continue to survive because of salary caps and because thier fan base is considerably larger. It's pretty easy to make money when you're drawing 35,000-50,000+ fans per game. The NBA has survived because basketball is played in every corner of the US including Alaska. But even there after their Olympic performance I wouldn't be surprised to see some changes made.

If I were an owner in the WHA, I'd be licking my chops. If the NHL stays out for longer than a year, I can see a lot of players starting to move to the new league and eventually the NHL will fold. More power to the WHA. I'd rather watch hockey that means something anyway.

[broken27]

If I were an owner in the WHA, I'd be licking my chops.

If you were an owner in the WHA, you'd be one of 3 or 4 people.

Seriously though, the WHA will benefit from this if it ever gets off the ground. But from what I've seen about it, it will have a cap system from the very begining, making any NHLer who joins it a bit of a hypocrite...

Dan

[mberube]

Throughout history, salaries were always the source of conflicts between the NHL and the players.

It all started with Fred "Cyclone" Taylor who signed a contract of 5 250$ in 1910, the NHL adopted a salary cap of 5 000 dollars per team.

In 1953, Jean Béliveau signed a contract paying him 100 000$ for 5 years. At that time, it was the biggest contract in NHL history.

From 100 000 dollars to one million. Bobby Orr had become the first millionaire in the NHL After winning 3 MVP’s, the Bruins offered him a 5 year deal worth 1 000 000$.

It’s in 1990 that the race began. The Blues defensemen Scott Stevens was in the drivers seat when he signed a 4 year, 5 million dollars deal.

In 1994, Wayne Gretzky, Mark Messier and Stevens were paid over 5 million dollars per seasons.

After that, the sky was the limit. Most players established a standard in salaries in the NHL forcing the owners to spit out millions to keep their teams competitive. Bobby Holik signed for 45 million dollars for 5 years. The problems begin.

Curtis Joseph signed for 8 million per season and only played 92 games. in two years.

Even the enforcers like Bob Boughner signed for 2.3 million last year. Not bad for a player that has 5 points in 54 games.

Something must be done.

Mike

[Big_duck]

... Players are paid less on average because each team has far more of them to pay.

You left out that Teams are guaranteed only 8 home dates as well.

Buffalo Bills (Rich Stadium) Capacity 75,339 X 8 Games = 602712 BIS (Bums in Seats)

Air Canada Centre Capacity 18800 X 41 Games = 770800 BIS.

Each NFL Team make about $ 58 Million in TV Revenue, which almost covers the Salary Cap. NHL TV money wouldn't cover a team payroll if every player on the team only made the league minimium salary. It's time for the players to get real.

... The concept of "cost certainty" is a joke, and the legality of a "hard salary cap" is questionable.

Absoloutly not true. All labour agreements in the real world (outside sports) have a scale of wages to be paid to workers, and if you work there that is what your salary is "Capped" at period.

I think it is ridiculous that the players have it both ways a Union and individual Wage Negotiation. If you want to be Unionized then your compensation should be wholly based on what your bargaining unit can negotiate. You don't see PSAC workers bringing in an agent to negotiate a seperate deal.

The players are proposing wage cuts and a luxury tax system.

Yeah, with penalties that were so small they might as well not have been there; kind of like the CFL "Salary Cap". When the Players Assoc. were asked if they would consider a more punitive "Tax" they said no it would be like a Salary Cap then (in other words it would actually work).

... end of my rant

[jeffc]

what I find interesting is that the NHLPA is asking for guaranteed contracts and a guaranteed average salary but balk at the idea of the owners actually wanting some sort of guaranteed revenue despite the fact that the owners have ~$300m of their own $ invested in the team and buildings. It's the owners with all the risk on their heads, not the players.

[broken27]

what I find interesting is that the NHLPA is asking for guaranteed contracts and a guaranteed average salary but balk at the idea of the owners actually wanting some sort of guaranteed revenue despite the fact that the owners have ~$300m of their own $ invested in the team and buildings. It's the owners with all the risk on their heads, not the players.

Exactly. I would say that of all the ownership groups, only 2 of them have made their fortunes through hockey. Phoenix (Gretzky) and Pittsburgh (my main man Mario). The rest have entered into the NHL as owners because of personal interest, investment potential or other reasons. EVERY NHL PLAYER has made their fortunes through hockey.

The players can NOT lose money by being in the NHL, whereas owners currently can NOT make money by being in the NHL (at least 75%).

Why is it that the players are so insistant and defiant in their stance against a salary cap? Every normal business has an internal salary cap, it's called a payroll budget. As Donh mentioned above, it is laughable that the NHL players bargain collectively as well as individually, and in both cases salaries are affected.

Give me a month, I'll be over it...

Dan

[em69]

A perfect example of why we need to abolish unions. My wife is facing a strike situation with PSAC, but because we can't afford to miss out on her paycheque, she's going to be breaking the picket lines (as any self-respecting person who signed a contract of employment should do!). This will no doubt create a rift between her and her co-workers that have the Yashin mentality and think they deserve more than they agreed to accept when they were hired and signed their contracts...

Unions are antiquated and should be made illegal. At least, the rules of striking should be totally revised to make sure people can't just hold their employers hostage.

I was supposed to be on strike when CCRA went on strike a bunch of years ago, but I broke the lines every day. Shortly after that strike was resolved, we went on strike again. Seems that PSAC wasn't happy with what they had negotiated. Idiots.

I wonder if union membership in the NHLPA or PSAC was optional, how many people would join? Personally, I don't feel I got my $60/month's worth from PSAC, but then again I didn't ask for anything more than what was indicated on my contract when I signed it.

Just my opinion, I'm sure most of you will disagree...

Dan

Just you know...the Unions cannot force you to sign and register with them; it's a choice. I work with a few people who chose not to sign and are now on the exempt list. They can cross without worries.

[broken27]

Just you know...the Unions cannot force you to sign and register with them; it's a choice. I work with a few people who chose not to sign and are now on the exempt list. They can cross without worries.

If you are talking about PSAC, you must work with "casual" contract employees (6-mths or less). Other than that, I was assured by everyone I asked that there was no choice. I told my wife to enquire with her department, and there is no way around union membership unless you're casual employee or your religion stipulates that you cannot belong to a union (stupidest thing I've ever heard of).... Just so you know, and to rebuff any notion of the sort, I am not arguing with you em69, I am stating my contextual reference point...

For the record, my first term of employ with CCRA was when you were allowed to defer union dues to charity. I gave my $40 (rate back then) per month to the Humane Society of Ottawa Carleton. When "our" union won their settlement for whatever it is they were striking about, I got a cheque for over $2000. In hindsight it was probably frivolous, but I gave that money to the HS as well. Animals don't sign up to be pets, we force them to be, that was my mentality, and since I was perfectly content with making my contract value salary, I gave away the excess.... Now I have twins, and I wish I had that money back, but I am proud to have done something nice for the cats and dogs and other animals... No remorse, no regret.

Cheers,

Dan

[em69]

We're slightly off topic, but that's not what I was referring to (deferring dues). I work with Indeterminate staff who have waived the right to be represented. They still pay the dues, but they can cross the picket lines as they are "exempt staff", therefore they still get their cheque every week. This way, they are not overly concerned when the Gov goes on strike every two or three years.

You lost me on the pet thing.

[em69]

Back to hockey...

I coudn't really care if they are locked out for the long term...I'd rather be playing hockey then watching any day. Personally, I think sports athletes are over paid and the fans always suffer to help subsidize their salaries.

[Sakuraba]

I'll be enjoying the upcoming NBA season. I suggest the Ottawa area hockey fans check out the 67s. Plus NFL week #2 is complete tonight. Monday night football's match tonight should be very good.

I wish NHL fans would realize that hockey is not at the same popularity level as MLB, NFL or NBA. Yes its very popular in Canadian circles, but its still the American tv networks that pay the big $ to keep a big league going. It will be a cold day in hell when people accross the USA are willing to switch off the Lakers game to watch hockey.

[broken27]

I'll be enjoying the upcoming NBA season. I suggest the Ottawa area hockey fans check out the 67s. Plus NFL week #2 is complete tonight. Monday night football's match tonight should be very good.

I wish NHL fans would realize that hockey is not at the same popularity level as MLB, NFL or NBA. Yes its very popular in Canadian circles, but its still the American tv networks that pay the big $ to keep a big league going. It will be a cold day in hell when people accross the USA are willing to switch off the Lakers game to watch hockey.

I personally can't believe that they show NBA games on Canadian networks. Of all the boring games, basketball ranks second only to baseball in my opinion. I don't understand how they can pay these would-be criminals millions of dollars each year. Until they raise the net high enough that at least 50% of the NBA players can't just walk up and deposit the ball in the hoop, it's not even a real sport.

Of course, that's my opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

OHL games, NFL games, and plenty of movie time with the wife this winter. I agree with the people who predict a mini baby-boom after this lockout...

Dan

[The Shtick]

I agree with the people who predict a mini baby-boom after this lockout...

Dan

[mberube]

I personally can't believe that they show NBA games on Canadian networks. Of all the boring games, basketball ranks second only to baseball in my opinion.

OHL games, NFL games, and plenty of movie time with the wife this winter. I agree with the people who predict a mini baby-boom after this lockout...

Dan

QMJHL is fun to watch. A lot of scoring and open ice plays.

[mr shank]

I wish NHL fans would realize that hockey is not at the same popularity level as MLB, NFL or NBA. Yes its very popular in Canadian circles, but its still the American tv networks that pay the big $ to keep a big league going. It will be a cold day in hell when people accross the USA are willing to switch off the Lakers game to watch hockey.

I think most NHL fans do realize this, but the players & owners do not.
Sports that preempt hockey in the U.S. are such things like showing a WNBA game during the Stanley Cup semi - finals.
During the World Championships of Hockey, there were just over 300 thousand TV viewers for the US teams final game. They had over 3 million viewers for the World Championships of Poker.
Hockey is a marginal sport at best in every country except Canada.

[powerlefty]

Hockey is a marginal sport at best in every country except Canada.

What about Sweden, Finland, Russia, Czech and Slovak? I was told recently by a knowledgeable person that hockey is #2 in Czech only behind (way behind) soccer. Granted, the populations of the countries I list are fairly small and, excluding Russia, combined total around that of Canada but hockey is not marginal there. I agree it is very marginal in the US.

[Big_duck]

What about Sweden, Finland, Russia, Czech and Slovak? I was told recently by a knowledgeable person that hockey is #2 in Czech only behind (way behind) soccer. Granted, the populations of the countries I list are fairly small and, excluding Russia, combined total around that of Canada but hockey is not marginal there. I agree it is very marginal in the US.

Hey PL, didn't you know the US is "The World"; NBA, MLB, and NFL champs all refered to as the "World Champions".

:xxrotflma

[NoBack]

yeah yeah yeah

The US is also world loosers of the Ryder Cup once again.

[mpare]

In a year's time you'll be hearing the television network execs saying: "Hockey. What's that? Sure, we'll put it on the tube for you guys, but don't expect us to pay much for it." Net result: quite a few US teams will fold (that will be a good thing, since it will ensure a better quality of players for the teams that survive) and an apathetic public that will insist on quality before being lured back to the rinks or the tube. Hummm. Now that I think about it, we may all be better off if they stay out at least 2 years. In the meantime, we may get to see a few more international events of the type that we just witnessed at the World Cup. Yahooo.

[powerlefty]

In a year's time you'll be hearing the television network execs saying: "Hockey. What's that? Sure, we'll put it on the tube for you guys, but don't expect us to pay much for it."

As far as US television is concerned, hockey is already at that point. I think the deal the NHL recently signed with NBC actually only pays some pittance after NBC recovers all of its broadcast costs.

[mr shank]

As far as US television is concerned, hockey is already at that point. I think the deal the NHL recently signed with NBC actually only pays some pittance after NBC recovers all of its broadcast costs.

True - the deal with NBC doesn't pay the NHL a dime upfront. They will split the profit, if there is any, after the production costs are covered.
I beleive they still have a contract with ESPN for $60 million.
Apparently with the TV deal that ended this year each team got about 4 million year.
Not exactly big numbers for a professional sport

[The Shtick]

As announced today...... the 4-on 4 hockey has been suspended until they can make the game interesting.... how pathetic.... :cryin

Sorry guys, but hockey as we know it will never be the same again

[mpare]

As announced today...... the 4-on 4 hockey has been suspended until they can make the game interesting.... how pathetic.... :cryin

Sorry guys, but hockey as we know it will never be the same again

Good. Hockey as we know it willl thankfully come to an end, which hopefully may mean that hockey as some of us knew it will revive.

[broken27]

I am hopeful that some semblance of the European system will be inducted over here. More local representation per team, more niche-marketing potential, more insightful progressive ideas for rule changes that will bring about the style of game "mpare" refers to "having known".

I have been fortunate enough to have seen RSL (Russian Super League) and other European major league teams conduct both practices and games, and I can honestly say that I'd prefer to pay $50 per seat to watch them play because of their dedication to (and love for) the game. Today's NHL player has become too much of a businessman, and too little of a sportsman.

Dan