NHL Lockout: The Owner's New Plan - Page 2

sterlingice · 02-03-2005, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cydney

15. SALARY ROLLBACK

-- Union's offer of 24% across-the-board Salary Rollback for all remaining years of all existing contracts is accepted.

I can't believe this is actually in there. This was just a proposal put out there to try and fish for public opinion that didn't work.

Then again, I guess this is the owners' way of saying "ha, we called your bluff".

SI

Tekneek · 02-03-2005, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SackAttack

If you have "cost certainty," as the owners claim they need, why wouldn't you then, once you have it, do what you can to maximize your revenue, since you know the players can't hold you for ransom anymore?

I thought the owners had said that the salary cap would be tied to revenue?

Tekneek · 02-03-2005, 05:37 AM

If I were a player, I would jump at this. The NBA and MLB would hate this deal. It gives the PA access to accounting data, profit-sharing, and more. It could set a new benchmark for sports CBAs. Unless I am mistaken about the agreements with the other major sports, no other players' association would have the kind of access and involvement that the NHLPA would have going forward under this.

Maple Leafs · 02-03-2005, 08:27 AM

I'm really torn on the revenue-sharing, "socialist" argument. I root for a team that's big market, maybe the big market in all the league. I realize that gives them a huge advatnage over teams like the Oilers and Flames.

On the one hand, I look at the Leafs fan base all across North America. I see sold-out games, I see stands filled with blue and white jerseys during every road game, I see high TV ratings every time they play, and there's a part of me that says "They deserve to have more resources than the other teams, because they have a massive fan base that's incredibly loyal and throws money at the team. Why shouldn't they be able to spend more than some team playing in an empty arena that nobdy cares about?"

I hate the idea that one of the most successful teams (off the field) in all of North American sports should have to give up millions of dollars to support teams like Nashville and Atlanta that have no interest in a team. That's not millions of dollars of the owners money, it's my money, and the rest of the fans. I'm not so naive as to think that ticket prices will come down, so where does that leave us? I spend $200 on a new Leafs jersey, and the money goes straight to Phoenix so they can make another "How Icing Works" commercial for the scoreboard?

On the other hand, I want the Oilers and Flames and Wild to succeed because I can see the passion those fans have. I don't want to have a ten-team league. I think the NFL parity model is far better than the MLB model, with its guaranteed Yankees/Sox ALCS. And I realize that while the Leafs' popularity is largely based on their inherent greatness (cough), there's at least some measure of a self-fulfilling prophecy. They're on TV all the time because they get high ratings, so people grow up watching them, so the ratings stay high, so they're on TV all the time, etc. I get that.

In the end, I think it's inevitable that the league needs some sort of revenue sharing to survive. I accept that. I'd just feel a lot better about it if the league would first take a good hard look at its current franchises and decide to pull the plug on a few of them. I'd like to see the league divided into three tiers: the big markets, the small markets, and the no markets. First get rid of the no markets, and then I'll grin and bear it when you give my money to the small markets.

Tekneek · 02-03-2005, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I'd like to see the league divided into three tiers: the big markets, the small markets, and the no markets. First get rid of the no markets, and then I'll grin and bear it when you give my money to the small markets.

You think the NHLPA would consider that proposal? "Ok. You guys rejected the salary cap with 30 teams. Our new proposal involves eliminating roughly 100 NHL jobs amongst your ranks, along with the minor league organizations that go with them." And so goes their chance to prove in court that they are negotiating in 'good faith.'

Maple Leafs · 02-03-2005, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tekneek

You think the NHLPA would consider that proposal? "Ok. You guys rejected the salary cap with 30 teams. Our new proposal involves eliminating roughly 100 NHL jobs amongst your ranks, along with the minor league organizations that go with them." And so goes their chance to prove in court that they are negotiating in 'good faith.'

Actually, everything you read indicates that the NHL is fine with fewer teams. It's completely counter-intuitive for the reasons you mention, but people I've talked to (who are not insiders but who do get to talk to insiders) have said the PA wouldn't object to losing teams. Remember, the 100 jobs lost would just be the lowest paid players anyways, the fourth liners. Does the NHLPA seem like it really cares about those guys?

Tekneek · 02-03-2005, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Remember, the 100 jobs lost would just be the lowest paid players anyways, the fourth liners. Does the NHLPA seem like it really cares about those guys?

A valid point. If they cared about those guys, they would be playing hockey right now. The low-end players stand to make more money under most of the league's proposals. Over half of the players in the league make less than the average salary too, with the median salary $300k - $400k below the average. I'm not sure, yet, why they are letting the high-rollers lead them into ruin.

The owners aren't ready to consider contraction. Quite frankly, I think there is sufficient evidence that all current teams could make money in their locations, especially with a cap in place.

SirFozzie · 02-03-2005, 08:47 AM

BTW.. read the fine print of the owner's plan.. There's enough poison pills in this to make it nothing more then a cheap PR stunt at BEST.

For example.. "Oh look.. we hate arbitration, but we're going to make it so both players and teams can go to arbitration. See how much we're willing to bend?"

And OOPS.. there's language in the contracts that states that at ANY time, the owners can pull arbitration off the table and replace it with guaranteed free agency at 28, where the players run into the artificial barriers of salary.

JonInMiddleGA · 02-03-2005, 08:48 AM

Lemme get this straight ... a league of 10-20 teams "isn't credible", and yet I've heard repeatedly how "credible" a league of scabs would be? Bwahahahahaha.

SirFozzie · 02-03-2005, 08:50 AM

(this is an espn.com article

)

Want a clear understanding of just how bleak are the prospects of a resolution to the NHL lockout? It's now up to Gary Bettman and Bob Goodenow to save the day.

For most of the last month the respective leaders of the two sides in the longest labor dispute in NHL history were frozen out of the process because it was believed things might go more smoothly with the two acerbic personalities safely tucked away in their offices. Now, after the NHLPA quickly rejected the latest, perhaps last, league proposal presented Wednesday, NHLPA executive director Goodenow and NHL commissioner Bettman aren't just back in the loop but they must work together to defuse the labor time bomb they helped create before the season blows up in their collective faces.

"Obviously if we're going to break the current logjam we're going to have to brainstorm on some new directions," NHLPA senior director Ted Saskin said during a conference call hours after the union's rejection of the offer which was pretty much the same offer the union flat-out rejected last Thursday in New York.

"We need to discuss where we are in the process and how we might move it forward," Saskin said.
The one element of certainty about Thursday's meeting is that it marks the beginning of the end of this dispute. Whatever the outcome of Thursday's meeting will set the course.

Imagine every bad odd-couple, cop/partner movie ever made without any of the laughs and you'll have a sense of Thursday's meeting dynamics. Oil and water have a better chance of getting together than these two men do given their history and the shaky framework provided by this latest proposal.

Saskin had perhaps the best analogy of the situation. It's like someone tries to sell you a house in a swamp but offers to put in some nice curtains to obscure the view, he said.

"The salary cap is the swamp."

To be sure, there are some curtain-like elements to the NHL's proposal that might actually provide the framework for meaningful movement in this dispute.

There's a profit-sharing initiative that the NHL's top negotiator Bill Daly describes as the "cornerstone" of a long-term partnership between the players and owners. But the concept is so vague no one could say just how lucrative it might be or when there might actually be profits to share.

There's an option for a joint audit of team financial records with heavy penalties in the form of fines and forfeited draft books for non-compliance and a player/owner council to oversee improvements to the game and business matters.

There's the return of salary arbitration which the owners wanted to eliminate altogether although there is a clause in the new proposal that allows the owners to eliminate it whenever they want and replace it with unrestricted free agency at age 28. That's not a particularly attractive option for players given that the market would be flooded with players trying to sign on with teams who'll have less money to spend.

"Oh, let me sign up for that," one team player rep told ESPN.com sarcastically.

There's a payroll tax component which the players can invoke at their discretion. Of course given that it's a payroll tax within the salary restraints demanded by the league makes it of little use to players.

Which brings us to the salary cap, which is actually a cap within a cap -- or given Saskin's analogy, a swamp within a swamp?

Including player benefits, there is a minimum salary requirement of $32 million per team and a ceiling of $42.2 million. But team salaries cannot exceed 55 percent of league revenues, which means that given last year's $2.1 billion in revenue the maximum per team payroll would be $38.5 million. If revenue drops to, let's say $1.75 billion, the maximum per team salary would drop to $32 million. If revenues jumped to $3 billion, salaries would be capped at $42.2 million even though 55 percent of those revenues would mean a $55 million payroll.

The proposal also called for a three-year maximum on any contract length.

As for the 24 percent across the board rollback on existing contracts offered by the players in December, the owners did make a concession there. They agreed to keep the rollback but left it as an across the board rollback instead of restructuring it as they did in their Dec. 14 proposal.

"Why did the NHL even make this offer? The whole thing doesn't make any sense," another team rep told ESPN.com.

"I think almost every player in the association would turn this down. It's not something to make players look long and hard at," he added.

It's almost as though this offer is designed to ensure that players don't actually give it serious consideration, the player rep said.

"Just when it looks like we might possibly take a step forward they give us something that's three steps backward," he said. "They make it easy for us."

What remains confounding is what exactly might be discussed Thursday in New York and how it could possible end any other way than abruptly.

"I don't know what there is to talk about. It gets a little stranger every day," one of the player reps confided.

The one element of certainty about Thursday's meeting is that it marks the beginning of the end of this dispute. Whatever the outcome of Thursday's meeting will set the course.

If Goodenow and Bettman are able to find in the wreckage of rejected proposals and entrenched positions some kernel of common ground, the talks will move forward without a break.

"I would hope that as an outcome of tomorrow we will continue talks on a continual basis," Daly said. "I am concerned in any prolonged gap in the negotiations at this point. It's time that the parties need to be working on this and mutually problem-solve on a daily basis to try to get this resolved."

If, as logic and history suggest, the two men glare at each other and quickly depart, then the formal cancellation of the season won't be far behind.

At this stage, a resolution of any kind will be considered mercifully welcome.

Tekneek · 02-03-2005, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

BTW.. read the fine print of the owner's plan.. There's enough poison pills in this to make it nothing more then a cheap PR stunt at BEST.

After four seasons of it, complete with annual accounting done by a firm that the NHL and NHLPA select, the union can open it up again. If the league was lying, surely they would have the evidence by then, right? In the meantime, they can keep making lucrative salaries (even $300k a year is in a high tax bracket)... I think the knowledge gained from the unprecedented level of involvement the NHLPA would have under this proposal makes it worth more consideration than their snide remarks give it. I think they are afraid the league is right about the finances and once annual accounting is done the NHLPA will be forever locked into that system as the media revenue dwindles away. The NHLPA isn't happy with 53% - 55% of league revenues. They want 75% of the revenue pie that is getting smaller and smaller.

Maybe the players want to handle the off-ice jobs too, since they want the off-ice staff to be paid with 25% of the money. There are a lot more people involved off the playing roster than there is on it. Spending over half of the revenue on the playing roster is a pretty fair offer, because the players by themselves don't generate the revenue. If all the off-ice stuff is a mess, the fans won't be knocking down the doors to get into the arena.

gi · 02-03-2005, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

BTW.. read the fine print of the owner's plan.. There's enough poison pills in this to make it nothing more then a cheap PR stunt at BEST.

For example.. "Oh look.. we hate arbitration, but we're going to make it so both players and teams can go to arbitration. See how much we're willing to bend?"

And OOPS.. there's language in the contracts that states that at ANY time, the owners can pull arbitration off the table and replace it with guaranteed free agency at 28, where the players run into the artificial barriers of salary.

This was setup to be the point of negotiation. Any 'poison pills' are put in there to be negotiated out by the PA during the process. Seems very normal to me.

thrym · 02-03-2005, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Lemme get this straight ... a league of 10-20 teams "isn't credible", and yet I've heard repeatedly how "credible" a league of scabs would be? Bwahahahahaha.

The difference being, one is permanent and one is temporary...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

BINGO! Sports leagues aren't "just like every other business".

Hell yeah, what he said!!!

Sports leagues are unique all around...a model for the NHL might be only found in another league, the NFL. Are they 'doing it right'...at least partially I think and it works for them. Their field is leveled enough now that every team can go into training camp with a real belief that they can make it to the playoffs...and more than a few can be optimistic that a deep playoff run is possible. This translates to a good time for the fans and it makes it fun for everyone!

ISiddiqui · 02-03-2005, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

to support teams like Nashville and Atlanta that have no interest in a team

A slight nitpick, but I believe Atlanta is one of the few teams that is profitable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I think they are afraid the league is right about the finances

I think you are right. If they can't use the "NHL is lying about their finances" canard then they lose a lot. The public opinion will definetly shift full swing over to the owners, who the public can see is losing money hand over fist.

SirFozzie · 02-03-2005, 02:04 PM

Please, like the NHL still won't cook the books.

Not an honest team amongst the bunch. There's too many ways to hide legitimate revene for it to ever be truly counted.

sterlingice · 02-03-2005, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Lemme get this straight ... a league of 10-20 teams "isn't credible", and yet I've heard repeatedly how "credible" a league of scabs would be? Bwahahahahaha.

Try a little harder. Name the number of leagues who have actually went on with scabs? Again, it's a pure negotiating ploy.

SI

Karim · 02-03-2005, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Please, like the NHL still won't cook the books.

Not an honest team amongst the bunch. There's too many ways to hide legitimate revene for it to ever be truly counted.

No doubt there are shady characters. However, Flames management opened up all the books with the players a couple years ago. The President is very reputable, actively involved with the fans and I take him at his word when he says the team was riding $35 million of debt but made $15 million last year because of the playoff run. Ownership consists of legitimate hockey fans, who have put up with losses more than they should have but have kept the team here rather than leaving for Houston or somewhere else. Alumni are still living here and actively involved in the community and with local charities. All in all, it's a pretty classy organization.

Montreal also has the reputation of being a first class organization but I can't comment specifically.

SirFozzie · 02-03-2005, 07:26 PM

Ok, I take back my comment.

that's two.

I wouldn't trust the other owners to tell me the weather with the help of an open window and a thermometer/

Tekneek · 02-03-2005, 08:28 PM

You don't have to trust the NHL with the accounting. The accounting firm would be selected by both the NHL AND the NHLPA. Get it?

Also, there are some pretty stiff penalties for not turning over the proper goods.

Karim · 02-03-2005, 08:34 PM

Well, it's 9:32 p.m. EST and they're still meeting in New York... 8 hours and counting... a small statement from the NHL which says no updates will be given tonight...

The six heavy hitters are working... I think (hope?) they realize the damage no season will cause to *both* sides...

Pyser · 02-03-2005, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karim

Well, it's 9:32 p.m. EST and they're still meeting in New York... 8 hours and counting... a small statement from the NHL which says no updates will be given tonight...

The six heavy hitters are working... I think (hope?) they realize the damage no season will cause to *both* sides...

if any concessions are made, its gotta come from the players. they wont give up the money AND the prime of their careers.

i just hope something is resolved...

Maple Leafs · 02-03-2005, 09:15 PM

Whichever side you're on, one thing's for sure... the longer this goes, the better the chance of a deal.

SunDancer · 02-03-2005, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Whichever side you're on, one thing's for sure... the longer this goes, the better the chance of a deal.

Didn't the AFL-NFL merger back in the day go on forever over how to realign the league between all the owners?

Karim · 02-04-2005, 01:38 AM

Meeting again tomorrow...

SirFozzie · 02-04-2005, 08:15 AM

So.. how do you book revenue from concessions. From Merchandising. From parking, arena advertising...

This is all hidden stuff that earns sports teams owners a ton of moeny. But if you take a look at sports teams.. you don't see any of that shit. Why? Because it suits the team's need to book the revenue as an arena owner while crying about huge (fake) losses as a team owner.

You see, you have two ways to look at this. The players aren't important in this thing. They're just the paid help.

Either...

A) The owners are incompetent fools who can't spend within a budget and be innovative in attempting to keep the fans interested in the public without spending beyond their means who, for their own sake, should have their teams yanked from them for their own good to prevent them from losing tens of millions of dollars to their own incompetence.

or...

B) The owners are like many other corporate suits.. looking for every last despicable trick and loophole to break any opposition. Crying poor all the way to the bank while raking in tens of millions of dollars behind the scene. They don't want cost certainty, or actually, they don't just WANT cost certainty, they want to take a step towardsthe old days where owners were rich and players were basically indentured servants.

You know, for a society that abhorred Communism in all its forms in the 80s so deeply, we sure want it for a major part of our sports lives.

I think I start to understand some folks's opinion when they say.. "You can't legislate fairness"

Tekneek · 02-04-2005, 09:30 AM

If my employer said they were committed to spending at least 53% of revenues on non-management wages, I think I could be happy with that. You combine profit-sharing with that and I am entirely on board. I would want to sign that committment immediately before they changed their mind.

Crapshoot · 02-04-2005, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

So are you, but I get tired of crying in the wilderness of raw jealousy that this subject seems to generate.

Shit, I'll join this camp. A Salary Cap is essentialy people (owners) asking to be saved from their own stupidity - and having someone else bear the burden for it.

Crapshoot · 02-04-2005, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RendeR

Its too bad you're missing the point.

Without the cap and the things that go with it in about 5 years there would be about a dozen hockey teams in existance and you'd still be paying an arm and a leg to see them.

But of course thats better than giving all the teams enough of a financial footing to stay in business and put competitive units on the ice.

Sure, tix prices will still be high, but at least its a chance to actually have a sport to buy a ticket FOR.
Its not an issue of who's getting the better deal, the issue is continuing to have the NHL to enjoy as fans, wether we can afford to go to the games or not isn't at issue here. There will always be fans who just can't afford to (like myself)

It comes down to this, without a cap the NHL is done, stick a fork in it. With a cap it can at least put more competitive teams on the ice in all its cities and support the fan base with a product.

Hocky, or no hockey, THAT is the question.

Dood, you're ignoring basic economic principles in favor of half hearted crap motivated primarily because people can't deal with atheletes making a lot of money. There is no damn motivation to lower ticket prices whatsover. if the NFL paid its players 1/10th of what it did, do you think Super Bowl tickets would be any cheaper ?

Crapshoot · 02-04-2005, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

BINGO! Sports leagues aren't "just like every other business". They require a form of collusion in order to merely survive. No other business relies on their competitor's health for its own. No other business gets together with the owners of its competitors to decide the 'rules of the game'. Sports leagues are just an entirely different model and it is about time that people stopped thinking of them as the same as every other business. They aren't.

Umm - no. You think Microsoft isnt reliant on its competitors making software for its systems ? You think Adobe isnt reliant on other companies using its standards as the way to distribute documents ? Sports teams are complimentary products to one another.

Tekneek · 02-04-2005, 10:05 AM

If the players want a "free market" they can go to a different hockey league. They don't have to play in the NHL. As you can see from this season, they don't have a problem suiting up overseas. Heck, they don't even seem to have a problem playing for a few hundred bucks a week (demonstrated by NHL regulars signing with the lowest levels of pro hockey in North America). They say one thing when talking about the NHL, but then go off and do the opposite.

If you want there to be no cap, then we should drop guaranteed contracts as a requirement as well. That's not 'free market.' No minimum salary, other than the minimum wage for the location of the team. If the owners are not allowed to be collective in the CBA, then neither can the players. No more union. We're going entirely with the free market approach. Each player negotiates his own arrangements in his contract and that's where it stops.

Anthony · 02-04-2005, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Shit, I'll join this camp. A Salary Cap is essentialy people (owners) asking to be saved from their own stupidity - and having someone else bear the burden for it.

actually it's not. it's essentially one group of people having more resources due to their location and market size to spend on FA's than people in smaller markets and with smaller resources. the playing field needs to be equal so that smaller resource teams can compete with teams with infinite resources. stupidity only deals with the big market teams who keep raising the value of top FA's and price them out of the market.

the point is to compete and win because you have a superior gameplan and are savvy when it comes to assembling your team. the point isn't to have unfair advantages and to use your endless stream of revenue to buy a championship. we know that always isn't the case for baseball where teams like the Marlins and Angels win, but those are the exceptions to the rule.

ISiddiqui · 02-04-2005, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Umm - no. You think Microsoft isnt reliant on its competitors making software for its systems ? You think Adobe isnt reliant on other companies using its standards as the way to distribute documents ? Sports teams are complimentary products to one another.

No, not really. Microsoft would be fine if its competitors didn't exist. More than fine. Adobe doesn't compete with OS makers like Microsoft and Apple who use its standards. Adobe would also be fine if competitors didn't exist. More than fine.

Sports teams could not exist if it did not have its competitors.

Crapshoot · 02-04-2005, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

No, not really. Microsoft would be fine if its competitors didn't exist. More than fine. Adobe doesn't compete with OS makers like Microsoft and Apple who use its standards. Adobe would also be fine if competitors didn't exist. More than fine.

Sports teams could not exist if it did not have its competitors.

Microsoft can sell OS's and computers because of their need in business and because people love the software they can run on their computers on MSN systems - their is an intrinsic link there. Take Apple for instance- it was kept afloat by a Microsoft investment in the pre JOB era (although it is a bad example).

Tekneek · 02-04-2005, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Take Apple for instance- it was kept afloat by a Microsoft investment in the pre JOB era (although it is a bad example).

Was there ever a pre-Steve Jobs era for Apple?

Steven Paul Jobs (born February 24, 1955) is best known as the co-founder (with Steve Wozniak) and CEO of Apple Computer, and somewhat less so for his leadership of Pixar.

Perhaps you are referring to his 11 year absence from 1985-1996?

Crapshoot · 02-04-2005, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Was there ever a pre-Steve Jobs era for Apple?

Steven Paul Jobs (born February 24, 1955) is best known as the co-founder (with Steve Wozniak) and CEO of Apple Computer, and somewhat less so for his leadership of Pixar.

Perhaps you are referring to his 11 year absence from 1985-1996?

That is what Im referring to when- Microsoft put a $150 million in cash into the company - a fact many a Mac-phile likes to forget (different story) ..

ISiddiqui · 02-04-2005, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Microsoft can sell OS's and computers because of their need in business and because people love the software they can run on their computers on MSN systems - their is an intrinsic link there. Take Apple for instance- it was kept afloat by a Microsoft investment in the pre JOB era (although it is a bad example).

What link is there to one of its competitors? Apple was only kept afloat to try to stave off anti-trust decisions (they could point to them and say see... there is another one!). Without anti-trust, they'd love to squash them like a bug. Then again, Apple does more than make OS and productivity software.

Maple Leafs · 02-04-2005, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Umm - no. You think Microsoft isnt reliant on its competitors making software for its systems ? You think Adobe isnt reliant on other companies using its standards as the way to distribute documents ?

Given that I work for the only major company to compete directly with both Microsoft and Adobe, I feel uniquely quailfied to tell you that your anology fails miserably.

(Which is not to say your argument fails, just that this particular analogy was a poor choice.)

Crapshoot · 02-04-2005, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Given that I work for the only major company to compete directly with both Microsoft and Adobe, I feel uniquely quailfied to tell you that your anology fails miserably.

(Which is not to say your argument fails, just that this particular analogy was a poor choice.)

Why would that be the case ? Its not a great analogy by any means, but I'd prefer an explanation rather than a "rank dismissal". Essentialy, my point is that in any market, competitors are very often a neccessary evil. in the MP3 player market, Rio has benefited from Apple's presence, because people want MP3 players, but many can't afford Ipods and go with a cheaper option.

Maple Leafs · 02-04-2005, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Why would that be the case ? Its not a great analogy by any means, but I'd prefer an explanation rather than a "rank dismissal". Essentialy, my point is that in any market, competitors are very often a neccessary evil.

Microsoft especially, and Adobe to a somewhat lesser extent, have often done everything in their power to destroy competitors. Not to compete with them, but to put them out of existence. There have been several high-profile examples, but even the boring day-to-day stuff would have you shaking your head.

Now you could make a very good argument that that's just business, and the competitors should quit crying and just compete harder, survival of the fittest and all that. And yes, there are a handful of examples of competitors helping each other (usually only due to unusual circumstances, like anti-trust lawsuits). But to say that the software industry heavyweights are accepting of competition is just not generally supported by history.

02-03-2005, 08:27 AM	#54
Maple Leafs Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2002	I'm really torn on the revenue-sharing, "socialist" argument. I root for a team that's big market, maybe the big market in all the league. I realize that gives them a huge advatnage over teams like the Oilers and Flames. On the one hand, I look at the Leafs fan base all across North America. I see sold-out games, I see stands filled with blue and white jerseys during every road game, I see high TV ratings every time they play, and there's a part of me that says "They deserve to have more resources than the other teams, because they have a massive fan base that's incredibly loyal and throws money at the team. Why shouldn't they be able to spend more than some team playing in an empty arena that nobdy cares about?" I hate the idea that one of the most successful teams (off the field) in all of North American sports should have to give up millions of dollars to support teams like Nashville and Atlanta that have no interest in a team. That's not millions of dollars of the owners money, it's my money, and the rest of the fans. I'm not so naive as to think that ticket prices will come down, so where does that leave us? I spend $200 on a new Leafs jersey, and the money goes straight to Phoenix so they can make another "How Icing Works" commercial for the scoreboard? On the other hand, I want the Oilers and Flames and Wild to succeed because I can see the passion those fans have. I don't want to have a ten-team league. I think the NFL parity model is far better than the MLB model, with its guaranteed Yankees/Sox ALCS. And I realize that while the Leafs' popularity is largely based on their inherent greatness (cough), there's at least some measure of a self-fulfilling prophecy. They're on TV all the time because they get high ratings, so people grow up watching them, so the ratings stay high, so they're on TV all the time, etc. I get that. In the end, I think it's inevitable that the league needs some sort of revenue sharing to survive. I accept that. I'd just feel a lot better about it if the league would first take a good hard look at its current franchises and decide to pull the plug on a few of them. I'd like to see the league divided into three tiers: the big markets, the small markets, and the no markets. First get rid of the no markets, and then I'll grin and bear it when you give my money to the small markets. __________________ Down Goes Brown: Toronto Maple Leafs Humor and Analysis

02-03-2005, 08:47 AM	#58
SirFozzie Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: The State of Insanity	BTW.. read the fine print of the owner's plan.. There's enough poison pills in this to make it nothing more then a cheap PR stunt at BEST. For example.. "Oh look.. we hate arbitration, but we're going to make it so both players and teams can go to arbitration. See how much we're willing to bend?" And OOPS.. there's language in the contracts that states that at ANY time, the owners can pull arbitration off the table and replace it with guaranteed free agency at 28, where the players run into the artificial barriers of salary. __________________ Check out Foz's New Video Game Site, An 8-bit Mind in an 8GB world! http://an8bitmind.com

02-03-2005, 08:48 AM	#59
JonInMiddleGA Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA	Lemme get this straight ... a league of 10-20 teams "isn't credible", and yet I've heard repeatedly how "credible" a league of scabs would be? Bwahahahahaha. __________________ "I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis

02-03-2005, 08:50 AM	#60
SirFozzie Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: The State of Insanity	(this is an espn.com article ) Want a clear understanding of just how bleak are the prospects of a resolution to the NHL lockout? It's now up to Gary Bettman and Bob Goodenow to save the day. For most of the last month the respective leaders of the two sides in the longest labor dispute in NHL history were frozen out of the process because it was believed things might go more smoothly with the two acerbic personalities safely tucked away in their offices. Now, after the NHLPA quickly rejected the latest, perhaps last, league proposal presented Wednesday, NHLPA executive director Goodenow and NHL commissioner Bettman aren't just back in the loop but they must work together to defuse the labor time bomb they helped create before the season blows up in their collective faces. "Obviously if we're going to break the current logjam we're going to have to brainstorm on some new directions," NHLPA senior director Ted Saskin said during a conference call hours after the union's rejection of the offer which was pretty much the same offer the union flat-out rejected last Thursday in New York. "We need to discuss where we are in the process and how we might move it forward," Saskin said. The one element of certainty about Thursday's meeting is that it marks the beginning of the end of this dispute. Whatever the outcome of Thursday's meeting will set the course. Imagine every bad odd-couple, cop/partner movie ever made without any of the laughs and you'll have a sense of Thursday's meeting dynamics. Oil and water have a better chance of getting together than these two men do given their history and the shaky framework provided by this latest proposal. Saskin had perhaps the best analogy of the situation. It's like someone tries to sell you a house in a swamp but offers to put in some nice curtains to obscure the view, he said. "The salary cap is the swamp." To be sure, there are some curtain-like elements to the NHL's proposal that might actually provide the framework for meaningful movement in this dispute. There's a profit-sharing initiative that the NHL's top negotiator Bill Daly describes as the "cornerstone" of a long-term partnership between the players and owners. But the concept is so vague no one could say just how lucrative it might be or when there might actually be profits to share. There's an option for a joint audit of team financial records with heavy penalties in the form of fines and forfeited draft books for non-compliance and a player/owner council to oversee improvements to the game and business matters. There's the return of salary arbitration which the owners wanted to eliminate altogether although there is a clause in the new proposal that allows the owners to eliminate it whenever they want and replace it with unrestricted free agency at age 28. That's not a particularly attractive option for players given that the market would be flooded with players trying to sign on with teams who'll have less money to spend. "Oh, let me sign up for that," one team player rep told ESPN.com sarcastically. There's a payroll tax component which the players can invoke at their discretion. Of course given that it's a payroll tax within the salary restraints demanded by the league makes it of little use to players. Which brings us to the salary cap, which is actually a cap within a cap -- or given Saskin's analogy, a swamp within a swamp? Including player benefits, there is a minimum salary requirement of $32 million per team and a ceiling of $42.2 million. But team salaries cannot exceed 55 percent of league revenues, which means that given last year's $2.1 billion in revenue the maximum per team payroll would be $38.5 million. If revenue drops to, let's say $1.75 billion, the maximum per team salary would drop to $32 million. If revenues jumped to $3 billion, salaries would be capped at $42.2 million even though 55 percent of those revenues would mean a $55 million payroll. The proposal also called for a three-year maximum on any contract length. As for the 24 percent across the board rollback on existing contracts offered by the players in December, the owners did make a concession there. They agreed to keep the rollback but left it as an across the board rollback instead of restructuring it as they did in their Dec. 14 proposal. "Why did the NHL even make this offer? The whole thing doesn't make any sense," another team rep told ESPN.com. "I think almost every player in the association would turn this down. It's not something to make players look long and hard at," he added. It's almost as though this offer is designed to ensure that players don't actually give it serious consideration, the player rep said. "Just when it looks like we might possibly take a step forward they give us something that's three steps backward," he said. "They make it easy for us." What remains confounding is what exactly might be discussed Thursday in New York and how it could possible end any other way than abruptly. "I don't know what there is to talk about. It gets a little stranger every day," one of the player reps confided. The one element of certainty about Thursday's meeting is that it marks the beginning of the end of this dispute. Whatever the outcome of Thursday's meeting will set the course. If Goodenow and Bettman are able to find in the wreckage of rejected proposals and entrenched positions some kernel of common ground, the talks will move forward without a break. "I would hope that as an outcome of tomorrow we will continue talks on a continual basis," Daly said. "I am concerned in any prolonged gap in the negotiations at this point. It's time that the parties need to be working on this and mutually problem-solve on a daily basis to try to get this resolved." If, as logic and history suggest, the two men glare at each other and quickly depart, then the formal cancellation of the season won't be far behind. At this stage, a resolution of any kind will be considered mercifully welcome. __________________ Check out Foz's New Video Game Site, An 8-bit Mind in an 8GB world! http://an8bitmind.com Last edited by SirFozzie : 02-03-2005 at 08:55 AM.

02-03-2005, 02:04 PM	#65
SirFozzie Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: The State of Insanity	Please, like the NHL still won't cook the books. Not an honest team amongst the bunch. There's too many ways to hide legitimate revene for it to ever be truly counted. __________________ Check out Foz's New Video Game Site, An 8-bit Mind in an 8GB world! http://an8bitmind.com

02-03-2005, 05:37 AM	#53
Tekneek Pro Rookie Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: USA	If I were a player, I would jump at this. The NBA and MLB would hate this deal. It gives the PA access to accounting data, profit-sharing, and more. It could set a new benchmark for sports CBAs. Unless I am mistaken about the agreements with the other major sports, no other players' association would have the kind of access and involvement that the NHLPA would have going forward under this.

02-03-2005, 07:26 PM	#68
SirFozzie Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: The State of Insanity	Ok, I take back my comment. that's two. I wouldn't trust the other owners to tell me the weather with the help of an open window and a thermometer/ __________________ Check out Foz's New Video Game Site, An 8-bit Mind in an 8GB world! http://an8bitmind.com

02-03-2005, 08:28 PM	#69
Tekneek Pro Rookie Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: USA	You don't have to trust the NHL with the accounting. The accounting firm would be selected by both the NHL AND the NHLPA. Get it? Also, there are some pretty stiff penalties for not turning over the proper goods.

02-03-2005, 08:34 PM	#70
Karim College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Calgary	Well, it's 9:32 p.m. EST and they're still meeting in New York... 8 hours and counting... a small statement from the NHL which says no updates will be given tonight... The six heavy hitters are working... I think (hope?) they realize the damage no season will cause to both sides... Last edited by Karim : 02-03-2005 at 08:35 PM.

02-03-2005, 09:15 PM	#72
Maple Leafs Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2002	Whichever side you're on, one thing's for sure... the longer this goes, the better the chance of a deal. __________________ Down Goes Brown: Toronto Maple Leafs Humor and Analysis

02-04-2005, 01:38 AM	#74
Karim College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Calgary	Meeting again tomorrow...

02-04-2005, 08:15 AM	#75
SirFozzie Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: The State of Insanity	So.. how do you book revenue from concessions. From Merchandising. From parking, arena advertising... This is all hidden stuff that earns sports teams owners a ton of moeny. But if you take a look at sports teams.. you don't see any of that shit. Why? Because it suits the team's need to book the revenue as an arena owner while crying about huge (fake) losses as a team owner. You see, you have two ways to look at this. The players aren't important in this thing. They're just the paid help. Either... A) The owners are incompetent fools who can't spend within a budget and be innovative in attempting to keep the fans interested in the public without spending beyond their means who, for their own sake, should have their teams yanked from them for their own good to prevent them from losing tens of millions of dollars to their own incompetence. or... B) The owners are like many other corporate suits.. looking for every last despicable trick and loophole to break any opposition. Crying poor all the way to the bank while raking in tens of millions of dollars behind the scene. They don't want cost certainty, or actually, they don't just WANT cost certainty, they want to take a step towardsthe old days where owners were rich and players were basically indentured servants. You know, for a society that abhorred Communism in all its forms in the 80s so deeply, we sure want it for a major part of our sports lives. I think I start to understand some folks's opinion when they say.. "You can't legislate fairness" __________________ Check out Foz's New Video Game Site, An 8-bit Mind in an 8GB world! http://an8bitmind.com

02-04-2005, 09:30 AM	#76
Tekneek Pro Rookie Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: USA	If my employer said they were committed to spending at least 53% of revenues on non-management wages, I think I could be happy with that. You combine profit-sharing with that and I am entirely on board. I would want to sign that committment immediately before they changed their mind. Last edited by Tekneek : 02-04-2005 at 09:31 AM.

02-04-2005, 10:05 AM	#80
Tekneek Pro Rookie Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: USA	If the players want a "free market" they can go to a different hockey league. They don't have to play in the NHL. As you can see from this season, they don't have a problem suiting up overseas. Heck, they don't even seem to have a problem playing for a few hundred bucks a week (demonstrated by NHL regulars signing with the lowest levels of pro hockey in North America). They say one thing when talking about the NHL, but then go off and do the opposite. If you want there to be no cap, then we should drop guaranteed contracts as a requirement as well. That's not 'free market.' No minimum salary, other than the minimum wage for the location of the team. If the owners are not allowed to be collective in the CBA, then neither can the players. No more union. We're going entirely with the free market approach. Each player negotiates his own arrangements in his contract and that's where it stops.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)