summer hockey?

[covanant]

anyone think the n.h.l will accept the latest offer?
if so,what do you think about playoffs in july/august?

[EDSGOLF]

I think they should, but won't they just make it a shorter season and still finish the playoffs in June. July/August is WAY too late and people will not wanna watch it.

[broken27]

Definitely won't see playoffs that deep into summer. They may have to end it a little later than normal, but not into July.

I doubt we'll see any hockey at all from the NHL this season. Too many reasons to be specific, but the main one is that the union is imploding on itself. They had to make that offer as PR to improve their public image. Sounded very lucrative for the owners on paper, and realistically was quite generous if you consider it would potentially account for 1/2 of the NHL's losses over the past decade.

But the equation that is needed is revenues relating to salaries. I don't think it's a bad time for Bettman to stick to his guns. It will ensure viability long-term, which is more important than this one year.

Dan

[NoBack]

Summer of 2008 maybe

[el tigre]

Interesting article in The Globe and Mail today:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...NStory/Sports/

The quotes that I find the most interesting are:
The NHL will want the courts to let them impose their own agreement and open the season with replacement players...

...What the owners wanted to do all along, according to someone in close contact with them, is break the union and impose their own collective agreement.

By insisting from the beginning that it was a hard cap or nothing, Bettman painted himself into a corner. The only way he can keep his job is to deliver it because too many owners were promised one.

From the very beginning, it was clear to me that the owner's agenda was actually to break the union. That is why they have refused to negotiate. They were obviously shocked with the NHLPA's latest offer because it clearly addresses many of the economic issues the league faces, and at the very least offers a starting point for serious negotiations. Don't forget that some teams were profitable under the old system - under the player's proposal even teams in a marginal hockey market with semi-competant management should be able to at least break even.

If the NHL still insists on a hard salary cap, then it should become painfully obvious to everyone that the owner's lockout is not about league economics "fixing the system" or "the long-term viability of the game" and never was - it is about power. Just another manifestation of the owner's huge egos, which ironicly is the cause of the spiralling players' salaries in the first place.

Here's my prediction - no hockey this year, next year the NHL starts up with replacement players (castoff's from CBC's Making the Cut show) but nobody goes to watch them cuz AHL/Junior hockey is better, several US teams in weak markets collapse, and the NHL actually begins serious negotiations in December 2005.

Earliest chance to see real NHL hockey will be January 2006. If we're lucky.

[NoBack]

You know what? There are 2 soliutions left.

1-Fold all the teams, go back to six teams and let the owners decide how much they want to pay them. If the players don't like it, I hope they went to school and can get a real job. Enough already. It's a game. These guys make millions off the fans and want even more?

2-Let the players use their own money and buy their own buildings and start their own league. Who cares anymore. I want golf season back.

[broken27]

Terry, I don't know where your stance on the issue comes from.

Firstly, of course the ideal case scenario for the league has always been to break the union. The union is a joke, and serves no other purpose than to be a thorn in the side of the NHL. People can talk all they want about owners not being financially responsible, but the union has on many occasions told players what their contract demands should be.

Secondly, the league has said many times that they will not be using replacement players. There is no point in doing that, because it will sink league economics back to the semi-pro level, and owners can't afford NHL arenas for AHL players. Fans won't pay $150 per seat to watch the Brian McGrattans of the world (except some stupid Leafs fans, who will pay just about anything and have an AHL calibre team to begin with).

Thirdly, the NHLPA's proposal did NOTHING to address the league's economic problems. Rolling back salaries is not addressing the problem (which is systemic), it is just a bandaid. It would serve only to free up enough cash for some teams to go on a spending spree, which would happen in Toronto, New York, Colorado etc for sure....

Finally, while I am no Bettman supporter, I find him to at least have a spine. I'm tired of unions constantly getting their way. The time for unions was back when there were only 6 teams in the NHL, and now it's just a dinosaur waiting to become extinct (hopefully). Let these whiny players ply their trade elsewhere and see how well off they are. They should be trying to set their own league up with a system that will allow them to continue making the ridiculous sums of money they currently enjoy for playing a kids' game.

Anyways, the offer will be rejected today, and Bettman will outline his final offer. Hopefully the union realizes just how stupid they're being and sign off on it.

Dan

[el tigre]

1-Fold all the teams, go back to six teams and let the owners decide how much they want to pay them. If the players don't like it, I hope they went to school and can get a real job. Enough already. It's a game. These guys make millions off the fans and want even more?

Don't mean to pick on you Steve, because I hear this a lot from fans whenever there is a strike/lockout in a professional sport. But it has nothing to do with labour issues at hand or the business and economic issues facing the particular multi-billion dollar sports industry. It is simply based on ENVY and JEALOUSY.

Sure, hockey/baseball/football/soccer players get paid a ton of money to play a game that most of us play just for fun. Sure, I'd love to get that job! Or at least that kind of paycheck for the job I do have.

But even though I'm very good at my job, I can't honestly say I'm one of top 500 in the world at it. And I can think of a quite a few jobs where the top 500 in the world make more money than professional athletes (corporate CEO's, for one). Some deserve it, some don't. That's life.

And even though EVERY employer says that their employees are their most valuable assets, in professional sports it really is true. Without the players the league has nothing to sell. So it should be no surprise that in a multi-billion dollar industry, the company's most important employees make a lot of money. I wish I was skilled enough to be one of them, but sadly I am not. But rest assured, if several employers engaged in a bidding war for my services then I wouldn't stop them! And neither would any other sports fans in the world. Unfortunately, our employers just aren't dumb enough!

Finally, there is the implication that if it wasn't for (fill in name of sport here), these athletes would all be bums on the street. I doubt it. Most of them are pretty smart guys who took advantage of the opportunities presented them. At least they got those opportunities through talent and hard work. There are a lot of very rich people in the world who do absolutely nothing. I don't begrudge others for the money they have. It's not about what you have or don't have - it's what you do with what you've got that counts.

Let's face it, even most owners agree that they got themselves into this mess. Bettman has them convinced them that the only way to fix it is to blow it up and start over. Sorry Gary (and Steve, and broken27), the time machine is broken. You really can't go back to the way things used to be.

[broken27]

Finally, there is the implication that if it wasn't for (fill in name of sport here), these athletes would all be bums on the street. I doubt it. Most of them are pretty smart guys who took advantage of the opportunities presented them. At least they got those opportunities through talent and hard work. There are a lot of very rich people in the world who do absolutely nothing. I don't begrudge others for the money they have. It's not about what you have or don't have - it's what you do with what you've got that counts.

Let's face it, even most owners agree that they got themselves into this mess. Bettman has them convinced them that the only way to fix it is to blow it up and start over. Sorry Gary (and Steve, and broken27), the time machine is broken. You really can't go back to the way things used to be.

Terry, the first point you make about athletes being relatively smart guys who took advantage of opportunities... Actually, most NHL players are not college grads, nor are they particularly bright. Talk to some of them some day, and you'll see what I mean. They wouldn't be bums on the street, but they could likely be found working blue collar jobs or low-end service industry jobs. Look at Rob Ray, who was working as a cement worker when Ottawa signed him two seasons ago...

Other unintelligent people in sports: Darryl Strawberry, OJ Simpson, Todd Bertuzzi, Pedro Guerrerro (apparently has been deemed "borderline retarded" by the courts).... The list goes on and on...

The second point you make about a time machine taking us back to the good old days... Well, that may be what Steve wants, but not me. Personally I think the NHL needs to scale back the economics it works with to the last known acceptable level, which would be just prior to the last CBA. I don't think contraction is needed, but I would applaud downsizing the league to about 24 teams. This increases the talent level by not having it spread out so thin. Plus, the season would be shorter (as the NHL wants), and marginal markets like Pittsburgh, Carolina, Florida, and Nashville could get back to whatever it is they do the rest of the year. EVERYONE WINS!!!

Finally, you mentioned that without the players, the league has nothing to sell. Well, the same can be said in the opposite order. Without the NHL, the players won't have jobs! No other hockey league can afford to pay out the salaries that the NHL does. Sure, AK Bars Kazan is doing it for one season in Russia, but they can't sustain the payroll they've amassed for more than one season. If it weren't the town's 1000th anniversary (or whatever), they'd never have signed the NHL players they did.

Dan

[NoBack]

Terry
All I'm saying is that if they wanted to start another league, they could. And people WILL watch it because there will be no OTHER league to watch. End of story. Go bankrupt, start over and to heck with these over paid multi million dollar hockey players. If they want to finish their careers palying they will take what the owner are paying. Let's face it, even if there is a salary cap they still get paid more than the average joe for doing something they SAYS they LOVES.

[el tigre]

Personally I think the NHL needs to scale back the economics it works with to the last known acceptable level, which would be just prior to the last CBA.

Yeah, I think the player's latest offer basically does that and more. The 24% wage cut gets all the press, but all the other changes address many of the issues that contribute to salary escalation. What is frustrating to me as a fan is that only one side seems genuinely interested in negotiating. All Bettman does is say no. I can train a seal to do that.

I don't think contraction is needed, but I would applaud downsizing the league to about 24 teams. This increases the talent level by not having it spread out so thin. Plus, the season would be shorter (as the NHL wants)

I agree, but tough to do because the expansion teams paid the existing owners to join. You can't take someone's money and then say "sorry, we're kicking you out of the club". You'd have to buy them out or let them go bankrupt - neither is an attractive option. And I believe it is the players that want fewer games, not the NHL.

Finally, you mentioned that without the players, the league has nothing to sell. Well, the same can be said in the opposite order. Without the NHL, the players won't have jobs!

Well, that's not true - about half of them are working in Europe. The market is smaller so the money is not as good, but it's a living.

The bottom line is, there is plenty of $$$ to be made selling professional hockey in North America. Whether it is the NHL or somebody else who figures out how to do it, you NEED top quality players to get people to watch it and those players will want a substantial piece of the pie. The bigger the pie, the bigger the piece.

[broken27]

I agree that the players AND owners should be using the "pie piece" idea and working together to fix the NHL. Quite frankly, the scaling back of salaries and other pertinent elements from the NHLPA's proposal will not work long term. It will save owners a pile of cash in the short run, but doesn't allow for a lengthier recovery period from the times of wildfire salary climbing we just witnessed.

The tax is nothing. NYR, DET, COL, TOR will all continue throwing money around. Now, while there is some revenue sharing from the taxes these teams will pay, smaller market teams will still lose their star players. They get back money, but the only way for them to stay competitive (more in a marketing sense than on the ice) is to use that money to "buy" another star player. This will happen.

The arbitration concessions are silly too. Just get rid of arbitration. The players want a free market system? Okay, that means we can also offer you as LITTLE as we see fit.

The entry level cap movement was okay, but the bonus structures should have been scaled back even further. A rookie who is a superstar in the making will still get his cash from endorsements, and if you're not going to be a superstar, why are you unhappy with $850K per season for 3 years?

I'd like to see more focus made on a compromise that would see the union give into a cap, but set higher than the proposed $32-million. In return, flexibility in the rules governing unrestricted free agency, player milestone bonuses paid out of pocket by the league (x-number of games / goals / wins / something....).

I'm not particularly impressed with anything proposed by either side to this point. I just side with the owners, because I believe they are being far more genuine than the union.

Dan

[covanant]

i also side with the owners,but lets not forget,they started this mess.

they cannot blame the players for everything.afterall how many people
out there actually think if a cap is put in place,ticket prices will go down?
not going to happen.

[g8r]

Yeah, I think the player's latest offer basically does that and more. The 24% wage cut gets all the press, but all the other changes address many of the issues that contribute to salary escalation. What is frustrating to me as a fan is that only one side seems genuinely interested in negotiating. All Bettman does is say no. I can train a seal to do that.

I disagree that only one side wants to negotiate. Just because the players broke the silence doesn't mean they are the only ones willing to negotiate. The NHLPA flatly rejected the NHL offer in less than 3 hours. In my opinion, Bettman is more willing to negotiate than Goodenow. The players flat out refusal to continue negotiations speaks to their total lack of understanding of the issues and willingness to resolve them. As broken27 said, the players offered a band-aid solution.
The NHL has proposed a counter offer, now its time to sit down and find the middle ground. Thats how negotiations work. Both sides have obviously presented proposals that are not "line in the sand". In negotiation, you start with what you want and make small concessions as you progress. The PA is not doing this. They are more hard lined than the leaugue. It will be interesteing when some of the lower paid players, who arent playing overseas, start hurting for money and break the ranks and speak out.
Has anyone read the TSN Solution (http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=100897). This would be a great starting point for negotiations, it has concessions for both sides.

I have a feeling this thread isnt going to end soon.

[el tigre]

The NHL has proposed a counter offer, now its time to sit down and find the middle ground. Thats how negotiations work. Both sides have obviously presented proposals that are not "line in the sand". In negotiation, you start with what you want and make small concessions as you progress. The PA is not doing this. They are more hard lined than the leaugue.

Negotiations, Act I, Scene 1
PA: We would like to renew the existing agreement.
NHL: We must have "cost certainty". Salaries will be directly tied to league revenues, meaning a hard salary cap of approximately $31 million per team.
PA: The players will NEVER accept a salary cap. In Canada and the US we have a free market economy that determines prices rather than some guy in New York. Salaries should be determined by player performance rather than how well the league manages the sport. It is not our fault the owners are too stupid to run their hockey teams properly - now you want OUR salaries to be tied to THEIR performance? BTW, is that really water you're drinking?
NHL: ...must have "cost certainty".

Negotiations, Act I, Scene 2
PA: OK, we know the game is in trouble (mostly because of your owners inept management). We'll offer you salary rollbacks and and luxury tax on payrolls over $40 million. In exchange for these concessions we want, er... well nothing actually.
NHL: No, we must have "cost certainty". We're cancelling all games until you cry "uncle".

Negotiations, Act II, Scene 1 (several months later)
PA: OK, we know if something doesn't happen soon then the season is done for. So we'll offer you HUGE salary rollbacks, plus a luxury tax on payrolls over $40 million, plus salary caps for rookies, plus stricter rules on qualifying offers, and a better arbitration system. In exchange for these concessions we want, er... well nothing actually.
NHL: Um, gee I sure didn't see that coming. Let me get back to you...

Negotiations, Act II, Scene 2 (a few days later)
NHL: In principle we will accept your HUGE salary rollbacks, salary caps for rookies and stricter rules on qualifying offers but we need to work on the details. We don't like arbitration, period. In exchange for your concessions we offer you, er... well nothing actually. Oh yeah, and we must have "cost certainty".
PA: Hello? Is there anybody in there? Um, perhaps we need a drug policy for the owners too?

Hmmm, now who is making concessions and who is being hard-lined again?

[broken27]

Terry, when you talk of making concessions, you make it sound like the PA made meaningful concessions that address the issues the league has said are killing the game. The PA has not once made any such concession.

Bottom line, if the owners want cost certainty, for whatever reason, including to protect them from themselves, then the union had better start making concessions in that area. Why aren't they willing to accept cost certainty? Because they are greedy.

If I were Goodenow (which is paradoxical since I hate unions), I'd spend my time figuring out what cap level would be acceptable to the players, rather than entering into meaningless PR battles that the PA has no chance of winning.

The owners DO NOT HAVE TO CONCEED. They OWN the teams. Why doesn't anyone get that? This is not the government, they can fire the players and move on....

Dan

[owenb]

Only one comment from me on this one...whatever happened to playing the game for the enjoyment of the game. Now it too has come down to the money. The owners want a cap on the salaries they agreed to pay to attract the fans. I say...at least they don't have..figure skating night in Canada...yet. I could come out of retirement and play for a $300k a year minimum salary.

[g8r]

Negotiations, Act I, Scene 1

PA: The players will NEVER accept a salary cap. In Canada and the US we have a free market economy that determines prices rather than some guy in New York. Salaries should be determined by player performance rather than how well the league manages the sport. It is not our fault the owners are too stupid to run their hockey teams properly - now you want OUR salaries to be tied to THEIR performance? BTW, is that really water you're drinking?
NHL: ...must have "cost certainty".
Hmmm, now who is making concessions and who is being hard-lined again?

You can't have a free market system and a Union. If you want a free market, drop the union and let the players negotiate whatever they can, not what the union says they should get, no arbitration, no whining if you have a good year but have 3 years left in a contract, if you sign a contract you're either stuck with it or you sit out until the next round of bargaining. Right now, players have all the power, i want a new contract, or I won't play, owners are screwed either way.

There is no "free market economy" in the NHL.

The system is entirely geared towards constant raises and has nothing to do with actual player performance. Curretnly if player A is making $1 mil per year, restricted free agent, his qualifying offer has to be 110%, regardless of his performance, is that a free market system? This player may be good enough for the team, but not good enough to warrant a 10% pay raise. On top of this, if 1 owner makes a bad decision and pays a player more than he's worth, every other owner has to pay for it since the PA holds that contract up as an example in arbitration. How is that fair for the smaller markets?

You want a solution to this.....tell the players...If you want to be part of a union, we'll treat you like a unionized employee...i think it was Brian Burke who commented (specifically on rookies, but it applies to all players)...If I go to the Pipe fitter's union and ask how much someone makes in their 1st, 2nd or 3rd year, they can tell me to the penny. You want to be paid like a Master pipe fitter, well, you not only have to be good, you have to put in the time. Great analogy, and applicable to almost every union I know of.

[covanant]

o.k,so lets asume the season is cancelled.

what happens next year?how long can this lock-out last?
can the owners simply re-draft?what about existing contracts?
i have not heard anything about it,except whats going on now.
just curious,because i dont see hockey comming back this year.:dissappro

[broken27]

Well, first thing they will do is declare this season lost, barring any real concessions from the PA.

The entry draft will be cancelled, and all eligible players (including Sidney Crosby) will become unrestricted free agents.

Any hopes of these NHL players going to Turino to play in the Olympics is lost.

If there is no settlement reached by the anticipated start of training camps, the NHL will likely declare a state of "impasse", meaning they can impose their own CBA forcefully on the league, so CAP-TIME!

At first, I anticipate that the players will be reluctant to join this New World Order league. But slowly, the rank and file players will come back. The star players can survive without income longer, and may not return until December or so, at which point they will not be in game shape, so lousy hockey.

By February or so, 2006, most North American players will be back, while a lot of Euros will stay in their homeland leagues, where they might stay. Another loss for fans.

By April, I'd say the fans will be back on board at about 75% of the levels from before the lockout. Stanley Cup will be awarded to a team comprised of "scabs", and life will go on.

Dan

PS - A lot of this is factual, some is my opinion as a hockey journalist.

[Andru]

Well, first thing they will do is declare this season lost, barring any real concessions from the PA.

The entry draft will be cancelled, and all eligible players (including Sidney Crosby) will become unrestricted free agents.

Any hopes of these NHL players going to Turino to play in the Olympics is lost.

If there is no settlement reached by the anticipated start of training camps, the NHL will likely declare a state of "impasse", meaning they can impose their own CBA forcefully on the league, so CAP-TIME!

At first, I anticipate that the players will be reluctant to join this New World Order league. But slowly, the rank and file players will come back. The star players can survive without income longer, and may not return until December or so, at which point they will not be in game shape, so lousy hockey.

By February or so, 2006, most North American players will be back, while a lot of Euros will stay in their homeland leagues, where they might stay. Another loss for fans.

By April, I'd say the fans will be back on board at about 75% of the levels from before the lockout. Stanley Cup will be awarded to a team comprised of "scabs", and life will go on.

Dan

PS - A lot of this is factual, some is my opinion as a hockey journalist.

HAHA. I disagree about the stars staying out. Even with the cap there will be room to hand out a sweet contract for a star on each team maybe two. I'm sure someone will take 6-7 million a season. I can't see A start turning down 5-6 million a season. It's not like they're going to be starving artists.

The big teams will want some sort of avenue to pay a big player. IE: the franchise player component in other leagues. They can also offer signing bonuses like the NFL. It's caponomics. The players have to understand the big teams will do anything to spend the money. Lawyers can find loop holes in anything.

The union will cave to the salary cap. They'll get some concessions though like earlier access to unrestricted free agency. That's how the NBA owners got the players to agree to the soft cap.

I know you have a personal stake in this, but as a pure fan I have to say I don't miss it. I play twice a week and I'm good with that. I'll be a little peeved come february when football is done. Then comes march madness. Before you know it. It's april and season starts.

[el tigre]

Any hopes of these NHL players going to Turino to play in the Olympics is lost.

If there is no settlement reached by the anticipated start of training camps, the NHL will likely declare a state of "impasse", meaning they can impose their own CBA forcefully on the league, so CAP-TIME!

At first, I anticipate that the players will be reluctant to join this New World Order league. But slowly, the rank and file players will come back. The star players can survive without income longer, and may not return until December or so, at which point they will not be in game shape, so lousy hockey.

By February or so, 2006, most North American players will be back, while a lot of Euros will stay in their homeland leagues, where they might stay. Another loss for fans.

Dan, this scenario is HIGHLY UNLIKELY and some of the actions you have outlined are illegal under labour relations law. Your scenario is really only possible IF you played it out over a number of years of the NHL playing hardball - which is a very big IF.

First of all, with no CBA in place the players can play wherever they want and don't need permission from the NHL - so they'll be at the Olympics in force. In fact, with all the time available for an extended training camp, it could be the best Olympic hockey tournament ever.

Secondly, the OWNERs cannot declare an impasse - they must ask the labour relations board(s) to declare an impasse. The union will argue that the owners are bargaining in bad faith, and it could win (after all, in happened that way in MLB several years ago). In Canada, labour is under provincial jurisdiction so the NHL would have to apply to the labour relations board in the US, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and BC. That's a lot of legal action. Most boards would probably appoint a mediator first, who would release a report that would be a PR nightmare for the NHL if they continue their current hardline strategy of non-negotiation. Factories may not care about bad PR, but for the NHL it is a big deal. Even if they are successful, there are significant risks.

Also, strictly speaking the owners cannot impose their own CBA since they can legally only bargain with the NHLPA. Probably just poor wording on your part, since what they can do is impose their own workplace rules in their new, non-unionized environment. And yes, those rules would undoubtedly include a salary cap.

Then they have to start with replacement players. This would present problems in BC and Quebec, where the laws on replacement workers are very strict. And unlike the NFL union, the NHLPA is very well organized and the players resolve is strong, so it is unlikely anyone will be in any hurry to cross the picket lines to play. Top players from European teams and the AHL/IHL etc. will also be very reluctant to cross the picket lines of a union they one day hope to join. So the "scabs" will end up being the 3rd and 4th line players from European/AHL teams (the ones who got bumped by the NHL players coming over), who will see this as an opportunity to make some good money before moving on to their next career. The NHL is having a tough time selling the TOP players in the world to some US markets, so fan support for these guys will be extremely tough to get.

Finally, your conclusion that most NHL players will eventually have to cross picket lines next year for financial reasons fails to recognize that professional hockey exists outside the NHL. Sure, European teams and the AHL don't pay as well, but none of the NHL players are starving. They can hold out for a very long time, and some of them may even like playing in Europe. It'll take a LONG time before you see significant numbers coming back (and it'll be for personal, competitive reasons rather than economic ones), and a lot can happen in that time.

Oh well, I might have to take an interest in basketball or curling. Looks like Bettman has screwed things up really good this time.

[el tigre]

You can't have a free market system and a Union. If you want a free market, drop the union and let the players negotiate whatever they can, not what the union says they should get...

I had a good chuckle when I read this.

First of all, every sports league effectively has TWO UNIONS - a union of employers represented by the commissioner's office and a union of employees represented by the player's association. Neither "union" takes ANY part in individual contract negotiations.

These two "unions" negotiate a CBA that includes rules for contract negotiations (including minimums and maximums in some cases) and covers a lot of other stuff that would normally be called "working conditions". Within these rules, players and teams are free to negotiate whatever they can and that is exactly what they do...

...which is precisely what the problem is for Gary Bettman. He wants a salary cap to limit how far some of his "intellectually-challenged" members can negotiate, because for some of them the sky is the limit!

[g8r]

I had a good chuckle when I read this.

First of all, every sports league effectively has TWO UNIONS - a union of employers represented by the commissioner's office and a union of employees represented by the player's association. Neither "union" takes ANY part in individual contract negotiations.

These two "unions" negotiate a CBA that includes rules for contract negotiations (including minimums and maximums in some cases) and covers a lot of other stuff that would normally be called "working conditions". Within these rules, players and teams are free to negotiate whatever they can and that is exactly what they do...

...which is precisely what the problem is for Gary Bettman. He wants a salary cap to limit how far some of his "intellectually-challenged" members can negotiate, because for some of them the sky is the limit!

Management is not considered a "union". The fact that a players union exists forces management to collectively bargaining, as you call it, in a "management union". You can see examples of this in the real world. A unionized trade sets wages that go across the board (with few exceptions), with unions negotiating with industry boards, while a non-unionized trade will have greater payscale variance in employees doing the same job with individual companies deciding on salary levels.

I'm not saying that I would support disbanding the players union. But I will repeat that you can not have a free market system with unions. I'll try to put this in perspective......lets look at the stock market, probably the closest thing to a "free market". There are strict rules concerning how you trade, what you can do, etc (the "working conditions"), but your stock sells for whatever the market dictates. If company A wants to buy company B stocks for twice what their worth, hell, it can be done within the guidelines set out. At the same time, company B's stock may not sell for $10 because people only want to pay $5. It only works one way in the NHL, if owners want to pay a higher price, the players don't complain, but when the market adjusts and the players arent worth what they used to, the CBA tells the owners they have to pay at least the same amount. This is where the owners are at a disadvantage. I'm sure there are alot of Nortel shareholders who wish they could sell stocks for at least 100% of what they bought them for, i'm sure they'd even settle for 50%!

The problem is twofold, the CBA is heavily skewed to favour players escalating salaries, and, without a doubt, there are stupid owners making stupid business decisions (i.e. Sather and Maloney of the NYR). The NHLPA indirectly participates in contract negotiations (eg salary arbitration).

[broken27]

Dan, this scenario is HIGHLY UNLIKELY and some of the actions you have outlined are illegal under labour relations law. Your scenario is really only possible IF you played it out over a number of years of the NHL playing hardball - which is a very big IF.

Well, I've done my reading on the subject, and everything I've outlined in my scenario has been documented as legally feasible by both the NHL and the NHLPA, and is scheduled to happen (or begin to happen) in the summer of 2005. So, to that end, I won't really bother responding point-by-point, as there's no point.

Dan

[jeffc]

One of the main problems is the nhl is not like other businesses. By this I am referring to:

Success is measured on winning (the cup in particular), not on how much $ you make. This is contradictory to most other businesses where success is measured by profit. So when a team has a shot at winning the cup and pressure is there to sign a few guys that will help in this, then this is done because a rich owner is willing to do this to win the cup. Unfortunately, this has a domino effect for everyone else, thus driving up costs. It does no good having a few teams winning every year and a bunch of average to crappy teams. This is where the cost certainty and tying expenses to revenue comes in. You can't leave it up to the owners to do, a system has to be put in place to make it fair for all the teams, and let the ones that are best managed, make the best trades, best coaching, players, etc. the ones who win not who spends the most $.

Look at baseball. No cap but a luxury tax. Since the Yankees make so much $ every year, they could care less about the LT. Do you think the Blue Jays have a chance at making the playoffs in the next 10 years, seeing they have the Yankees #1 payroll and Boston #2 in their division. Fuggetaboutit.

[el tigre]

It does no good having a few teams winning every year and a bunch of average to crappy teams. This is where the cost certainty and tying expenses to revenue comes in. You can't leave it up to the owners to do, a system has to be put in place to make it fair for all the teams, and let the ones that are best managed, make the best trades, best coaching, players, etc. the ones who win not who spends the most $.

This is why the small-market teams support a salary cap. They already spend less than the cap, but now their payroll will support a competitive team. The only significant financial benefit to them is that it stops their big-market "partners" from driving up salaries. And maybe they can make some playoff money every now and then.

For the big-market teams, the salary cap is like winning the lottery. They get to keep all of their big-market revenues, but now their costs are slashed in half. Okay, they can't buy a winning team anymore, but they can take comfort when they check their bank balance and watch their franchise values skyrocket.

So you are correct jeff, a salary cap will promote parity in the league. It will also transfer a lot of money from the players to the big-market team owners - the very people responsible for this mess in the first place! How ironic is that?

[broken27]

This is why the small-market teams support a salary cap. They already spend less than the cap, but now their payroll will support a competitive team. The only significant financial benefit to them is that it stops their big-market "partners" from driving up salaries. And maybe they can make some playoff money every now and then.

For the big-market teams, the salary cap is like winning the lottery. They get to keep all of their big-market revenues, but now their costs are slashed in half. Okay, they can't buy a winning team anymore, but they can take comfort when they check their bank balance and watch their franchise values skyrocket.

So you are correct jeff, a salary cap will promote parity in the league. It will also transfer a lot of money from the players to the big-market team owners - the very people responsible for this mess in the first place! How ironic is that?

The proposal made by the NHL includes a set of provisions that would ensure this would not happen. The league's revenue sharing proposal has more teeth than the union's did, so if anything, the exact opposite of what you're saying is true.

Dan

[jeffc]

their costs will be decreased, but they will have to share revenues with smaller market teams so I don't see how they come out that much further ahead. Regardless the big market teams values will always be worth more. Do to the revenue sharing with the players, the more $ made by the league, the more available to pay salaries....

[el tigre]

their costs will be decreased, but they will have to share revenues with smaller market teams so I don't see how they come out that much further ahead.

Jeff, the only revenues that are shared in the NHL is the national TV money.

Under Revenue Sharing, the NHL counter-proposal states:
"Under our proposed approach, all 30 of our Clubs (assuming an appropriate level of business performance within their respective markets), would be provided the ability to spend within the prescribed payroll range."

Translation: If a team's revenues are so low that they can't make their payroll, the other teams will pitch in to make up the difference so they don't go bankrupt.

Not exactly one for all and all for one, is it?