Even the NHL Owners know there'll be no season...

[SirFozzie]

Basically they rejected the players last best offer, and fully expect the players to say "Ok, Screw you if you won't negotiate"

The NHL intends to reject the Players' Association's latest proposal and counter with one "consistent with our mandate," NHL executive vice president Bill Daly wrote in a Dec. 12 memorandum to all 30 member clubs.

Adblock

The memo was obtained by The Sports Network of Canada.

The league has been seeking a system of "cost containment" throughout talks with the union on a new collective bargaining agreement. The Players' Association regards any connection between revenues and salaries as a salary cap and a non-starter in negotiations. While the memo does not detail what the NHL's proposal will contain, Daly writes that " ... under this scenario, the Union will likely [and quickly] break off negotiations."

The NHL will present its counter-proposal to the NHLPA at a 1 p.m. ET meeting Tuesday in Toronto.

The union proposed a 24-percent rollback in current salaries as the lynchpin of a 236-page proposal it presented to the league Thursday, the first negotiating session between the sides since Sept. 9. NHL commissioner Gary Bettman had called the offer "significant," but added that it is a "one-time element." Bettman said the league would digest the offer before formally responding to the union.

Daly's eight-page memo reiterates Bettman's initial statement and further elaborates with the league's position.

"In sum, we believe the Union's December 9 CBA proposal, while offering necessary and significant short-term financial relief, falls well short of providing the fundamental systemic changes that are required to ensure that overall League economics remain in synch on a going-forward basis," Daly writes.

"While the immediate 'rollback' of 24 percent offered by the Union would materially improve League economics for the 2004-05 season, there is virtually nothing in the Union's proposal that would prevent the dollars 'saved' from being re-directed right back into the player compensation system, such that the League's overall financial losses would approach current levels in only a matter of a couple of years."

Daly also pokes holes in the union's specific proposals, while alluding to the NHL's position, writing:

# The 24-percent rollback amount was adequate but should be structured among players "in a more equitable manner";

# The proposed entry-level system "can still easily be circumvented";

# The changes to the qualifying offer system "certainly would not result in the savings of the magnitude projected by the Union";

# The salary arbitration alterations "would have very limited impact [if any] on a Club's or League-wide economics ... We intend to reiterate our proposal to eliminate salary arbitration in our next offer to the Union";

# The luxury tax system demonstrates the union's "continuing objective to avoid at all costs placing meaningful restraints on a Club's ability to spend excessively on player salaries";

The memo also questions the motives behind the union's offer.

"We believe the Union's offer was more about trying to unify the players and ensure player solidarity with what they would perceive as a very substantial proposal than it was about making a good faith effort to reach agreement with us ..." Daly writes. " ... The Union needed the 'rallying point' that it felt this offer would provide with the players to effectuate this strategy. Under this scenario, the Union will likely [and quickly] break off negotiations."

[SirFozzie]

(this is a reply to the one below this one)

If the owners are stupid enough to let themselves get in this situation again, they deserve it.

Kill the NHL, and maybe get some owners who've actually figured out that spending more then you make equals a BAD thing.

[Karim]

Not surprising. The 24% did nothing to address systemic issues. If this proposal was accepted, we'd be right back here in 3-5 years. If the union isn't willing to address solutions for long-term viability, flush the season(s).

[Bubba Wheels]

Owners are willing to go even 2 years with the lockout. This if for all the marbles, a one-time chance for the owners to get what the NFL has and out of a Major-league baseball type of contract structure with the players. The owners have hit the nuclear button, and anything less that capitulation by the players will be laughed at. Anyone reading up on this before the lockout would have seen this. If the players don't like it, they can start their own league. But eventually, the owners WILL win. Its inevitable.

[Ryan S]

Am I the only person who finds it a little odd that the players are being forced to give concessions when the blame for this situation lies 100% at the owners feet? If you can't afford a contract, don't offer it.

I am strongly against any move towards a hard cap. I hate what it has done to the NFL, and I would hate to see that happen to hockey (or Baseball for that matter).

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

Am I the only person who finds it a little odd that the players are being forced to give concessions when the blame for this situation lies 100% at the owners feet? If you can't afford a contract, don't offer it.

I am strongly against any move towards a hard cap. I hate what it has done to the NFL, and I would hate to see that happen to hockey (or Baseball for that matter).

I agree that the owners are at fault. There's no excuse for offerring contracts they can't afford. The larger problem is that the league has expanded too far, and hasn't had the fan base to support it.

However, I'm not sure why you dislike the NFL cap system. It creates a more competitive league.

While I long for the days of Jack Kent Cooke and Redskins dominance, the fact is that the cap-related parity has been good for the game. Even now, the Redskins have a mathmatical shot at the playoffs, and they'd be in good shape if they had pulled off the upset against the Eagles yesterday. Several other teams are still alive, despite mediocre records, yet this doesn't preclude the existence of elite franchises... this is the only time in history we've had three teams at 12-1.

Baseball, on the other hand, is a mess. The players' union is too powerful, illustrated by the recent steroid debacle, and only a select few teams can afford to buy a shot at the playoffs. The Red Sox are a perfect example - I'm pretty sure their payroll was second only to the Yankees. And while everyone likes to point at the job the A's have done with limited resources, the fact is that they'll never win a World Series playing "Moneyball."

Hockey would do well with a cap. The small market teams that shouldn't exist could probably survive with one. Otherwise, they'll probably need to contract.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

I am strongly against any move towards a hard cap. I hate what it has done to the NFL,

That's interesting. The NFL has escalated in popularity because of relative parity - the NFL owners know it, the NFLPA knows it and the fans of course know it. All of the other American-based professional leagues are trying to grab that magic. I guess I wouldn't be too surprised if such a model would be foreign to international soccer leagues.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

when the blame for this situation lies 100% at the owners feet?

I also take great exception to this statement. Seems like the owners of the Avalanche and Red Wings do okay. The fans want a winning team and it comes down to supply and demand. The union/agents know this and demand outrageous salaries. If none of the owners give in, than that's collusion and here in the US, that's big legal no-no.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I also take great exception to this statement. Seems like the owners of the Avalanche and Red Wings do okay. The fans want a winning team and it comes down to supply and demand. The union/agents know this and demand outrageous salaries. If none of the owners give in, than that's collusion and here in the US, that's big legal no-no.

Don't know about the Avalanche, but Mike Illitch Red Wings owner is solidly behind the other owners and the lockout. Its even been said that the days of the Red Wings being the 'Yankees of Hockey' are over. But doesn't matter.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

That's interesting. The NFL has escalated in popularity because of relative parity - the NFL owners know it, the NFLPA knows it and the fans of course know it. All of the other American-based professional leagues are trying to grab that magic. I guess I wouldn't be too surprised if such a model would be foreign to international soccer leagues.

Since there is no "#1" league in the world, it's difficult to compare it to national sports leagues like the NHL which are clearly head and shoulders above any other league. Additionally, because of the world-wide aspect of soccer, it would be nearly impossible to institute a salary cap system that resulted in parity.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I also take great exception to this statement. Seems like the owners of the Avalanche and Red Wings do okay. The fans want a winning team and it comes down to supply and demand. The union/agents know this and demand outrageous salaries. If none of the owners give in, than that's collusion and here in the US, that's big legal no-no.

It's collusion for all of the owners to independently decide that they are unable to afford an outrageous demand by a player? I guess I learn something new every day.

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by Karim

Not surprising. The 24% did nothing to address systemic issues. If this proposal was accepted, we'd be right back here in 3-5 years. If the union isn't willing to address solutions for long-term viability, flush the season(s).

Agreed. I just finished a nine page paper on the NHL lockout for my Sports Sociology class and found this to be true of the 24% rollback proposal as well. The league will not stop until they tie team revenues into player salaries, and the players will not stop until they are told there will not be a hard cap.

[henry296]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

Am I the only person who finds it a little odd that the players are being forced to give concessions when the blame for this situation lies 100% at the owners feet? If you can't afford a contract, don't offer it.

I am strongly against any move towards a hard cap. I hate what it has done to the NFL, and I would hate to see that happen to hockey (or Baseball for that matter).

It is the problem caused by a couple of owners, not all owners. The small market teams are not responsible for the high player salaries. The league is trying to prevent a couple of owners from ruining it for everyone.

Todd

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

(this is a reply to the one below this one)

If the owners are stupid enough to let themselves get in this situation again, they deserve it.

Kill the NHL, and maybe get some owners who've actually figured out that spending more then you make equals a BAD thing.

You already said this almost verbatim in the previous thread and didn't listen to our arguments then, why should we discuss it again? But, if you want to hear it again...

Originally Posted by Ryan S

Am I the only person who finds it a little odd that the players are being forced to give concessions when the blame for this situation lies 100% at the owners feet? If you can't afford a contract, don't offer it.

I am strongly against any move towards a hard cap. I hate what it has done to the NFL, and I would hate to see that happen to hockey (or Baseball for that matter).

...And this is a horrible fallacy which Bucc explains and addresses both this and the previous point. This is not a free market like people want to compare it to. Intel doesn't need AMD to go, GM doesn't need Ford, American Airlines doesn't need United. In fact all of these businesses would be doing directly better if not for the other company. The owners have to both succeed and compete in the same market...

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

It's collusion for all of the owners to independently decide that they are unable to afford an outrageous demand by a player? I guess I learn something new every day.

...Which leads to a simple (counter)example. New York brings in more cash than Calgary by, lets say, a 2:1 margin. Thus, a demand for player X becomes "outrageous" in New York when he asks for $2M but Calgary can only pay $1M because he still only adds the same percentage of talent to either team. If Calgary offers player X $2M, they're going to expect twice as much out of him because proportionally, they've doubled their expenditures. Thus, if you're player X, you go to New York almost every time unless exterraneous factors like "I hate New York" really weigh into your decision making (but there's probably an large number of people who don't want to live in Calgary either be it for weather or whatnot).

So, then you are left with a situation where those teams with the most money get the best players which is bad for the long term interest of the sport because you kill of various markets. It's classic sports economics 101. What's not to get?

SI

[Buccaneer]

SI, you explained it much better than I did.

[Maple Leafs]

The season is over, the NHL will declare an impasse and bring in replacement players in September, and then we wait to see which side folds its hand. Simple as that.

This path has been predetermined for years. The rest of the story has just been PR and window dressing.

[klayman]

I remember when I was a kid, we had this thing called the NHL. It was good. Whatever happened to that?

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by klayman

I remember when I was a kid, we had this thing called the NHL. It was good. Whatever happened to that?

It was a great league. Even if the playoff system was stupid (16 of 21 getting in), it was such a fun game to watch.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

The season is over, the NHL will declare an impasse and bring in replacement players in September, and then we wait to see which side folds its hand. Simple as that.

This path has been predetermined for years. The rest of the story has just been PR and window dressing.

Its been said that the owners are making MORE money by NOT playing. That being the case, I really think that the owners would allow the league to fold half its teams right now before they would even think of settlement w/o a salary cap. This thing is entirely for the players to decide if things go forward or not.

[Bubba Wheels]

Hockey I can take or leave, just like seeing the politics of it. Living in the Detroit area, the only thing more obnoxious than a Red Wings' fan is a Buckeye fan (something about the color red?) Being able to listen to two different sports-talk radio shows this time of year w/o the hockey crap is total bliss.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Its been said that the owners are making MORE money by NOT playing. That being the case, I really think that the owners would allow the league to fold half its teams right now before they would even think of settlement w/o a salary cap. This thing is entirely for the players to decide if things go forward or not.

That's not entirely true. The owners lose less money by not playing. Or at least those teams in smaller markets. They don't make money by not having a sports team play but they don't lose as much.

SI

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

...Which leads to a simple (counter)example. New York brings in more cash than Calgary by, lets say, a 2:1 margin. Thus, a demand for player X becomes "outrageous" in New York when he asks for $2M but Calgary can only pay $1M because he still only adds the same percentage of talent to either team. If Calgary offers player X $2M, they're going to expect twice as much out of him because proportionally, they've doubled their expenditures. Thus, if you're player X, you go to New York almost every time unless exterraneous factors like "I hate New York" really weigh into your decision making (but there's probably an large number of people who don't want to live in Calgary either be it for weather or whatnot).

So, then you are left with a situation where those teams with the most money get the best players which is bad for the long term interest of the sport because you kill of various markets. It's classic sports economics 101. What's not to get?

I agree with this. The way Bucc put it, though, if New York thought he was worth $2 million and wasn't willing to go above, say, 2.5, and the guy demanded 4, both teams would tell him to take a hike, but that wouldn't be collusion.

The solution to the problem you pose isn't a salary cap, though... it's revenue sharing. The trick is to devise a plan which evens out the disparities while not encouraging teams to free-load and put less than maximum effort into developing their revenue streams.

[thealmighty]

Revenue sharing won't help anything because you still have too small a pool of revenue to keep up with the present salary structure of the league. Where do you think new revenue streams would come from? I don't see any, though I haven't looked.

Quite frankly, at this point, (except when a thread like this pops up), I have not thought that much about the season I am missing, and I have been a hockey fan since the glory days of Fort Worth Wings vs. Dallas Black Hawks blood feuds of 30 years ago.

[Mr. Wednesday]

The theory is, though, that the biggest problem is that smaller market teams feel they have to spend beyond their means to keep up with the bigger market teams. If you have a relatively level playing field revenue wise, then you expect teams to not live beyond their means and salaries settle to an equilibrium level.

Even if an owner decides to run at a deficit to try to win, I'm operating under the presumption that they would not be able to spend so much that it would render an insurmountable competitive advantage. I am presuming that well-run teams would be able to compete while spending less as the New Jersey Devils have done.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

The theory is, though, that the biggest problem is that smaller market teams feel they have to spend beyond their means to keep up with the bigger market teams. If you have a relatively level playing field revenue wise, then you expect teams to not live beyond their means and salaries settle to an equilibrium level.

Even if an owner decides to run at a deficit to try to win, I'm operating under the presumption that they would not be able to spend so much that it would render an insurmountable competitive advantage. I am presuming that well-run teams would be able to compete while spending less as the New Jersey Devils have done.

As stated in the other thread, more than in any other sport, a good guy between the pipes can win you a Cup or at least a good shot at one. Having the second best keeper of the era (and really, that's unfair to Marty because he played in the Age of Roy (TM- patent pending) ) goes a long way to being a good team without spending a lot.

Good revenue sharing can work, too- you don't need a hard cap but there are problems with sharing in hockey like in baseball. There's no motivation for large market teams to tap their local revenue as much as they can because they know they'll just have to share it. None of the sports have the benefit of football where, any one of us could be the GM of a team and make money of any franchise because a profit is turned solely off the tv contract. If you're the Rangers, why bother promoting your team, starting a network, etc when you're just going to have to fork over a large chunk or all of that money to Tampa or Carolina? Still, it would be a significant step in the right direction. But clearly the players aren't wanting any part of that as the revenue sharing in this proposal is laughably low.

SI

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by thealmighty

Revenue sharing won't help anything because you still have too small a pool of revenue to keep up with the present salary structure of the league. Where do you think new revenue streams would come from? I don't see any, though I haven't looked.

That's a big part of the problem. The other is that the only source of consistent revenue is from the established markets, and there comes a point where you have to question how much "sharing" should be forced into the hands of markets that can't support a team.

It's one thing to have revenue sharing in football or even baseball, where the teams that need help have at least established some history and fan base. But in the NHL, in many cases there is no history, no fan base, and no real hope of success without huge subsidies from the few succesful clubs.

As a Toronto fan, I have no problem seeing some of the team's profits going to help out teams like Edmonton or Minnesota. I do have a problem with seeing that money farmed out to Atlanta and Carolina and Nashville. Fans like me will need to be reminded of why we're paying (through ticket sales, jerseys, concessions, etc) to support markets that don't seem to do anything beyond dilute the league's talent pool. That's why revenue sharing is a much tougher sell in the NHL than any other league.

[MylesKnight]

The NHL season hasn't been taking place?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

The season is over, the NHL will declare an impasse and bring in replacement players in September, and then we wait to see which side folds its hand. Simple as that.

I'm intrigued by this scenario, because I don't see it ending happily. Let's say the owners never give in. Let's say they hire replacement workers. And then let's say that as a result of this, there's a new contract with the players (be it all replacement workers, the old NHLPA, or a mix of the two), which more or less accedes to all of the owners' demands.

Does this fix hockey's problem?

In my opinion, no.

While it might fix the immediate financial problems (salaries too high for revenues to support), it doesn't fix the more fundamental problem of the league being too big to generate enough interest to sustain itself.

I'm firmly of the opinion that the U.S. market can only support an interest in 3 major leagues. MLB will always have the audience because of the history. NFL & NBA have cemented their share of the market through very good marketing (and, in my opinion, in the NFL's case, having a very good product). The NHL isn't going to break into this group.

Yet they have 30 teams. They have many, many teams in places where kids don't grow up playing the sport (even recreationally). Could someone explain to me what the business plan was to make the sport catch on in places like Florida and California?

The NHL tried to become the 4th Major League, and it failed. It needs to recognize this, and move on. Many, many businesses succeed, and succeed a lot by focusing on their core business and by not expanding into every nook and cranny, so there's no shame in pursuing, and cornering, a niche market, and doing it well.

[gi]

Some guy named Art, "GO WINGS!!!!!!"

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Hockey I can take or leave, just like seeing the politics of it. Living in the Detroit area, the only thing more obnoxious than a Red Wings' fan is a Buckeye fan (something about the color red?) Being able to listen to two different sports-talk radio shows this time of year w/o the hockey crap is total bliss.

[SirFozzie]

This article basically says it all. (from Salon's King Kaufman's Column)

ec. 14, 2004 | The NHL appears to be on the verge of exploding any hope for saving the 2004-05 season, the first two months of which have been wiped out by a lockout of the players by the team owners. The players association made a surprising offer last week, the highlight of which was a proposed across-the-board 24 percent pay cut.

Union representatives and league officials were to meet Tuesday afternoon in Toronto, where the league was expected to reject the offer and continue to insist on what it calls "cost certainty," which means a hard salary cap that would be a percentage of league revenues. The union has said it won't negotiate on a hard cap, mostly because it wisely doesn't believe the league tells the truth about revenue, which in the sports biz is easy to hide.

TSN, a Canadian sports network, got its hands on a memo to the teams written by NHL executive vice president Bill Daly and dated Sunday.

"We believe the union's offer was more about trying to unify the players and ensure player solidarity with what they would perceive as a very substantial proposal than it was about making a good-faith effort to reach agreement with us," Daly wrote.

Yeah, that sounds right. I've been a union member, I've been on strike. If my union leaders had said they were going to try to end the impasse by proposing an across-the-board 24 percent pay cut, that would have been a terrific way to unify the membership and ensure solidarity. We'd have been as one as we threw them under a streetcar.

But Daly's correct that the union surely didn't think its offer would result in an agreement with the owners, because the union knows the owners won't budge. There's no such thing as a "good-faith effort" the union could make to reach an agreement other than simply capitulating.

Aside from the 24 percent cut, there were concessions about arbitration and entry-level pay scales. There's a luxury tax that would kick in when a team's payroll tops $45 million.

Last year 12 of the 30 teams had a payroll above $45 million, according to USA Today's salary database. After 24 percent rollbacks, seven teams would be over that figure based on their 2003-04 payrolls: Detroit, the New York Rangers, Dallas, Philadelphia, Colorado, Toronto and St. Louis. That reads like a salary upper crust, all right.

The highest-paying teams below the cutoff, Los Angeles and Anaheim, would be more than $4 million below it, in danger of crossing the line, but only if they bump their payrolls by more than 9 percent. Given the sport's economics, raising pay by 9 percent makes no sense at all. Given the track record of NHL owners in making smart business decisions -- especially when they have windfall cash to play with, as they did every time the league grew and collected one-time expansion fees -- raising pay by 9 percent is practically a foregone conclusion.

This is the nut of the matter: NHL owners are like idiot children. They cannot be trusted with money, so they have to have a spending limit at the player store. They deserve credit for realizing what boobs they are, but for not much else, other than driving a perfectly good professional sports league into the ditch of history.

"In the business world, if a company makes a bad business decision, then they have to pay for it, whether the stock goes down or whatever happens," Islanders captain Michael Peca told the Canadian Press. The owners "want an idiot-proof system."

Player agent Rick Curran used the phrase "fool-proof plan" in describing what NHL commissioner Gary Bettman is insisting on. "I think that's unfortunate," Curran told the National Post, a Canadian newspaper, "because what he's essentially telling his people is they can't do their jobs."

Gee, where would Bettman get that idea?

Players association president Trevor Linden told a Vancouver radio station he finds it a bit hard to swallow that with the concessions the union is offering, the owners still say they can't stick to a budget like any other business would have to.

"I don't think there's too many businesses out there that don't have to set their own budgets and don't have to be responsible," he said, "and I find it amazing that they need us to do that for them."

Last season the average NHL payroll was about $44.4 million, which might give you a clue where the players association got the notion of $45 million as a luxury tax threshold. The median payroll was about $39.4 million. (I passed algebra but that was a long time ago and I always have to look up what median means if it's been a while, so for those dummies like me: It means the point at which half the payrolls are higher and half are lower.) After a 24 percent pay cut, the average payroll would be about $33.7 million, the median right around $30 million.

A $45 million luxury tax threshold therefore looks a bit high if it's going to be taken seriously, though not so high that it couldn't be negotiated over. Lowering it to $38 million would ensnare Los Angeles, Anaheim and Washington, meaning a third of the league would pay the tax. A threshold of $34 million would force New Jersey and Boston to pay but would spare Vancouver, the Islanders and Ottawa, based on last year's payrolls. Sparing those teams sounds about right to me.

Of course, $34 million would be less than 1 percent above the average payroll, so it would almost certainly drive salaries down. On the other hand, that tax revenue would be given to the lower-revenue teams, who would theoretically use it to improve their lot, though there's never a guarantee that a bad businessman will do the smart thing with a cash windfall, as we've discussed.

Here's Daly again, in the memo to teams: "While the immediate 'rollback' of 24 percent offered by the union would materially improve league economics for the 2004-05 season, there is virtually nothing in the union's proposal that would prevent the dollars 'saved' from being re-directed right back into the player-compensation system, such that the league's overall financial losses would approach current levels in only a matter of a couple of years."

Well, nothing except the business acumen of the owners. Paying huge and ever-escalating salaries to players has proved to be a disastrous business strategy for every owner, even the ones who have won the Stanley Cup, the owners say.

So the owners, understanding that they can't go down the road of spiraling salaries again, would deploy their resources more effectively and avoid the kind of financial crisis they find themselves in today.

Of course, that's assuming the 30 owners have two synapses to rub together among them. So Daly was right: There's nothing to prevent them going down that same old road. There's no wonder these fools want a fool-proof system.

Many of us have worked for fools. Giving them back a quarter of our wages wouldn't have made them any smarter.

Eugene Melnyk, owner of the Ottawa Senators, told the Ottawa Sun, "There is one solution and that's what is being proposed by commissioner Bettman. If we follow that track, we will have hockey that is here to stay." He means the hard salary cap. Saying, "There is one solution" is not exactly negotiating in good faith, is it? The owners are easygoing guys, but they have to have things their way.

The proposed pay cut isn't just an isolated, one-time, quick fix. It would re-set the market. The mass lack of weeping and rending of garments by fans in the absence of NHL games this year gives the owners a pretty good argument that the high-dollar players aren't the huge box-office draws they've been paid to be and the pay scale has gotten out of whack.

Chastened by the mistakes of the last decade, and with a chance to undo the errors of about half of that time, the league ought to be able to make smarter decisions, not only about salaries but about legitimate revenue sharing, which, as we've discussed regarding baseball, ought to go to teams with low potential revenues, not low actual revenues. Otherwise it just rewards bad management rather than leveling the playing field. Or ice. You know what I mean.

Tuesday's expected robotic repeat of the demand for a hard salary cap will show that Bettman and the owners care not at all about repairing their relationship with the players, fixing the economics of the sport and doing the hard work of trying to turn things around and keep hockey from completely disappearing from the mainstream sports consciousness in the United States, where the vast majority of the league's potential revenues reside.

What they want to do is break the union and start over with a new, much lower pay scale. If you're a hockey fan you might want to look into catching a few minor league games this year. Some of those fellows might be the scabs of next fall. Enjoy.

[sterlingice]

Ah, Salon, that bastion of NHL writing. That probably explains why he doesn't grasp that a 20% luxury tax is barely a luxury tax at all. Or how he fails to address that the 24% will be back in the hands of the players in no time when there's no market constraints.

I'll be curious to see how much of a joke the counter proposal today will be. Maybe something equally as silly but in the opposite direction: "All of you get 25% pay raises for the duration of your contracts but there is a 200% luxury tax on all teams over $30M".

EDIT: Damn, I went back and read TSN's solution and it's looking better and better. It has its flaws (should probably move the FA age back a year and maybe fiddle with some of the numbers here and there because it's somewhat one sided but it's a good start).

SI

[Maple Leafs]

An article from the other perspective (from today's Toronto Star)...

After today, real NHL talks can start
League's offer no surprise to union
At least month before season cancelled

DAMIEN COX

First, the good news. The preliminaries are almost over.

After more than two years of tap-dancing, the real negotiations are set to begin.

Sadly, that won't stop us all having to ingest a little more meaningless high drama today when the NHL Players Association stomps away from a meeting with the league, in all likelihood claiming to be insulted and stunned by the owners' latest offer.

Of course, they won't have been even mildly surprised.

They won't be surprised to receive an offer that will include "linkage" that would restrict their collective earning power to less than 60 per cent of defined league revenues — a slight improvement on the last league offer — or a proposal that would completely abolish the salary arbitration system.

They might be a wee bit surprised by the twist the owners will put on last week's salary rollback proposal tendered by the union. In a bid to appeal to the middle and lower class of the union — in other words, the vast majority — the league will suggest that the wealthiest players in the league share a disproportionately larger burden of any NHL-wide pay cut.

The only way the players could have been truly shocked by what they will hear today, however, is if the league had accepted their headline-grabbing rollback offer, which really was a 24 per cent attempt to bribe the owners into letting the NHL financial system continue as it has been for the past decade.

Hey, it was worth a try. Like slipping the head waiter a fifty.

Montreal player rep Craig Rivet, in fact, said yesterday the players would have been "foolish" to believe the owners would simply accept the union offer, a rare snippet of independent realism from a member of the rank and file.

In general, ignore all the hysteria and doomsday scenarios you may hear today. The truth is that the entire process is, in fact, quite on schedule.

That doesn't mean there will be a deal. But it's important to remember the last NHL lockout ended with a deal on Jan. 12, 1995, which then allowed for a 48-game season to be played.

Four weeks before the final agreement, talks were going nowhere, with the owners insisting on a luxury tax and the players vowing never to accept one.

That means there's probably a month or more left in the current process before anything gets cancelled.

Let's be clear. The events of the past week have been many things and have generated many headlines, but substantive collective bargaining negotiations they have not been. It's been more like a very, very public exchange of position papers.

After today, both sides will have officially established their respective positions on salary cap vs. luxury tax, salary rollbacks, arbitration, entry-level salaries, qualifying offers and a variety of ancillary items.

Soon, the game of trading off begins, figuring out what can be exchanged for something from the other side.

Best guess? This will start to happen immediately after Christmas.

The problem going forward for the players, however, is that they have no meaningful leverage. Players have fled to Europe and lower North American pro leagues, but all that has done is establish their willingness to work for a fraction of the wages for which they skated in NHL competition.

Otherwise, these players have nowhere to go, no equivalent professional alternatives to the $1.3 million average salary the NHL is already saying it will offer in a new system.

On the other side, the owners have billions in resources. Larry Tanenbaum isn't getting any poorer through this lockout. Ditto for Eugene Melnyk, Phil Anschutz, Tom Hicks, Bill Davidson, Ted Leonsis and James Dolan.

There is far more personal and corporate wealth on the owners' side this time than was the case in '94. For most of the current owners, NHL hockey isn't even their primary business.

So the players must understand now that the owners really do intend to change the system.

The owners, in turn, understand the union is in a significant giveback mode.

So let the real negotiations begin.

[samifan24]

Nah nah nah nah
nah nah nah nah
hey hey hey
goodbye

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Ah, Salon, that bastion of NHL writing. That probably explains why he doesn't grasp that a 20% luxury tax is barely a luxury tax at all. Or how he fails to address that the 24% will be back in the hands of the players in no time when there's no market constraints.

It's room to negotiate. And even a 20% luxury tax is not no market constraints, it's just a lot less than the owners want.

[Karim]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The NHL tried to become the 4th Major League, and it failed. It needs to recognize this, and move on. Many, many businesses succeed, and succeed a lot by focusing on their core business and by not expanding into every nook and cranny, so there's no shame in pursuing, and cornering, a niche market, and doing it well.

This is what I and a lot of Canadian hockey fans have been saying for a long time. It's a regional winter sport. An important pre-requisite includes ice, preferably natural ice so kids can play and grow up with the sport. There are exceptions though, with San Jose and Dallas seeming to have good fan-bases but there's still not the widespread passion for the game that exists north of the border.

[Karim]

Poignant post from another forum:

I’ve been thinking recently and I really don’t see much of a difference between the average NHL player and my 4 year old. Both are entertaining; both play games for a living; both think they’re smarter than they really are.

I have been guilty in the past of spoiling my child and giving in too often to his demands for more, more, more – much like the owners have been guilty of overpaying players for so many years. Soon I began to realize that I couldn’t afford buying toys at the present rate; I had to start sticking to a budget and saying no to his demands. Like the players, his initial reaction was crying, kicking, yelling, screaming and name-calling – he hated me as the players hate Bettman. Eventually though, the ultimatum was given to him – either accept less toys or face the prospect of getting no toys at all. He decided it was better for him to live with less than with nothing and agreed. I guess that’s one difference between my 4 year old and the players – the ability to see the writing on the wall.

My four year old has never had to worry about money. He’s never had to endure the stress of having to stretch a paycheque long enough to pay for both the rent AND food on the table; or the broken heart that comes from telling a child that they can’t have what their friends have because the money simply isn’t there; or the fear of losing your home if you find yourself jobless for just a few months. My four year old doesn’t have to think of such things…neither do the NHL players.

My four year old does not realize that he has it good. He doesn’t think about the many children in the world (or even the same city) who don’t have the luxuries that he has. He gets caught up in his own small problems, never realizing how incredibly small these problems would seem to a homeless child. The NHL players also lack this empathy and complain in public (the vast majority of whom will never make in their lives what the player makes in a year) about how unfair it would be to force them to make $5 million instead of $7 million.

Listening to the players as they ill-advisedly open their mouths time and time again, I have come to realize the biggest difference between my 4 year old and the NHL players – I’d miss my four year old if he was gone.

[SoxWin]

The owners knew there'd be no season the moment they announced the lockout. Bettman is a cancer on the league, I can only hope he dies or gets fired soon.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Karim

Poignant post from another forum:

This is beautiful! This should be copied and faxed to every NHL player today! And the worst part for these players is the statement about missing your four-year old! That's exactly right, because you can almost count on one hand who is missing these spoiled millionaire players!

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

That's interesting. The NFL has escalated in popularity because of relative parity - the NFL owners know it, the NFLPA knows it and the fans of course know it.

In the last 10 years my interest in the NFL has plummeted. I am finding parity tends to mean that teams are "equally poor".

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

In the last 10 years my interest in the NFL has plummeted. I am finding parity tends to mean that teams are "equally poor".

In your case, I blame NFL Europe.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by SoxWin

The owners knew there'd be no season the moment they announced the lockout. Bettman is a cancer on the league, I can only hope he dies or gets fired soon.

Then again he could be the best thing to happen to the game since Patrick Roy.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Karim

This is what I and a lot of Canadian hockey fans have been saying for a long time. It's a regional winter sport. An important pre-requisite includes ice, preferably natural ice so kids can play and grow up with the sport. There are exceptions though, with San Jose and Dallas seeming to have good fan-bases but there's still not the widespread passion for the game that exists north of the border.

Ten years ago, the last time we went through this, you would have been laughed at for comparing the NHL to Nascar. The NHL was big league, #4 of the Big Four sports (and hot on the trail of the NBA for #3). Nascar had a following, but it was a niche sport and the fan base was largely regional.

In the last ten years, the NHL has tried to go into any and all markets. It's been obsessed with appeasing non-fans (who always promise they'll start watching if there's just one more rule change). It's virtually ignored it's real fan base, letting the quality of the game rot into the dead puck era, while eternally chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Meanwhile, Nascar stayed the course. It didn't worry about being regional or niche, because it knew the niche was plenty big enough. It didn't try to be something it wasn't. It didn't decide that it had to have races in Boston or Minnesota. It stayed true to what it was, and what the fans wanted. It grew when it made sense to grow, where it made sense to grow.

Today, ten years later, you'd still be lauged at for comparing the NHL to Nascar. But it would be because the NHL is on the verge of oblivion, and Nascar is one of the most popular sports in North America. There's probably a lesson in there, but I doubt either Bettman or the players see it.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

In the last 10 years my interest in the NFL has plummeted. I am finding parity tends to mean that teams are "equally poor".

If I might...from a (to me) respected football writer...


Rick Gosselin: There are many positives to parity
06:32 PM CST on Wednesday, December 15, 2004

Parity is getting a bad rap.

It’s in vogue to rip today's NFL as a game of mediocrity driven by a system that pushes all 32 of its teams toward 8-8 records.

But that’s not reality. The purists who want dynasties have a dynasty in today’s NFL. The New England Patriots have won two Super Bowls in the past three years and are favored to win a third in 2004. Also, there are three 12-1 teams for the first time in NFL history. The Patriots, Steelers and Eagles could compete with good teams of any era.

On the flip side, parity hasn’t enabled bad teams to become average. Miami (2-11), San Francisco (2-11) and Cleveland (3-10) would be bad in any era. The NFL remains a league of haves and have-nots.

What parity does is make it difficult for good teams to stay good and bad teams to stay bad. And that’s why I like the concept.

San Diego was among the worst teams in the NFL last season with a 4-12 record. There’s a good chance the Chargers can reverse that record in a span of a season. They have bolted from worst in the AFC West in 2003 to first in 2004 with a 10-3 record.

There are still good teams and bad teams in the NFL. They just vary from year to year. That gives everyone a chance. So every fan has a chance to cheer for a good team. What’s good for the fan has always been good for the game.

[gi]

Originally Posted by SoxWin

The owners knew there'd be no season the moment they announced the lockout. Bettman is a cancer on the league, I can only hope he dies or gets fired soon.

Why is he a cancer on the league? He represents the owners and the owners pay his salary. If they didn't agree with him they could fire him. Would it be too far to reach to say that what bettman says has some owner support?

[Karim]

Another perspective:

“Daddy … how come you don't cheer for the Leafs like me and my friends?”

“I just can't bring myself to do it son, you see I've hated those guys since I was your age”.

“Hated the Leafs? How can you hate the Leafs Dad, they're Canada's only NHL team, and they're doing so well for a team that has so little money”.

“True, true, but it wasn't always that way son, in fact when you were fairly new to this Earth there were 30 National Hockey League teams, six of which were in Canada, including a team here in Calgary”.

“A team in Calgary? You're pulling my leg, the closest National Hockey League team to Calgary is in St. Louis!”

“It's true son. When I was ten years old the Atlanta Flames moved to Calgary and took up roots for just over 25 years. Heck they even won the Stanley Cup.”

“They won the Stanley Cup? Wow, what happened?”

“Well … when you were just two years old the league and its player union had a lockout that pretty much changed hockey in Canada and most of the United States forever”.

“What happened?”

“It was coming up on Christmas time in 2004 and the two sides were a long way apart on how to solve their disagreement. Over 400 games were already lost and fans and media were itching for a solution. Then the players union came forward offering to reduce their salaries by almost 25%, essentially wiping out the reported losses by the owners.”

“Wow that was nice of the players, so hockey began again?”

“Yes it did, but looking back I wish it hadn't”

”Why daddy?”

“Well the reduction in salaries was a big deal for that season, hockey was profitable again, but as soon as the very next season it became very clear that the accepted deal wasn't a solid long term solution for the NHL”.

“What happened?”

“Teams that had always had more money than others quickly spent their savings on adding free agents to their already loaded roster, forcing up the average salary for other teams who just couldn't compete. Two years later the financial headaches were back and teams started to fold left and right, including our Calgary Flames”.

“Why did they pay so much for players Daddy? Couldn't the owners just say no and make sure the team stayed in Alberta?”

“They tried son, but the differences in talent between teams became so spread that owners were forced to up the ante in payroll just to get people to come watch their games. Soon many teams were losing money again, but this time, with a five year deal signed with the players there were no buyers for the clubs and they had to fold.”

“They couldn't say no?”

“Wealthy owners didn't want to say no, they wanted to win, the reason they bought a hockey team in the first place. And with no controls in place to hold back league wide salaries they were able to take advantage of the money provided by the player roll back and go on an even greater spending spree”.

“With all the teams folding, where did all the players go Dad?”

“Most were forced out of the game eventually. Some went to Europe for a while, but in the end the union lost somewhere close to half of their members”.

“Did the players know this would happen when they made their offer to reduce their salaries Dad?”

“Hard to say, they didn't admit it if they did at the time. You would think that by offering 24% of their salaries back to the owners they must have been aware of the problem, but chose to keep the high salaries and risk the future of many of the teams in the league”

“That's sad Dad, it would have been nice to watch hockey right here in Calgary, we could have gone together”.

“Nothing would have made me happier son, but I knew deep in my heart that day would never come when the 23 NHL owners agreed to take the one time fix in payroll and not hold on to their aims to finally fix the game”.

“You know what?”

“What's that son?”

“I don't think I'll cheer for the Leafs anymore either, who do you cheer for?”

“I don't.”

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Meanwhile, Nascar stayed the course. It didn't worry about being regional or niche, because it knew the niche was plenty big enough. It didn't try to be something it wasn't. It didn't decide that it had to have races in Boston or Minnesota. It stayed true to what it was, and what the fans wanted. It grew when it made sense to grow, where it made sense to grow.

It's funny you mention this at a time when NASCAR is busy taking races away from some of its long-standing but niche-market tracks and giving them to newer markets in an effort to grow the sport. In other words, NASCAR is starting to do now what the NHL started to do a decade ago.

[SirFozzie]

So in other words, owners can't control their own stupidity, so we have to reduce everybody to the same level. Cuz god knows, we can't have good teams or bad teams.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

It's funny you mention this at a time when NASCAR is busy taking races away from some of its long-standing but niche-market tracks and giving them to newer markets in an effort to grow the sport. In other words, NASCAR is starting to do now what the NHL started to do a decade ago.

NASCAR is a bit different though. it's an event driven sport. A once a year race is a heck of a lot easier to bang out then 40 regular season games.

I wouldn't call the Northeast a NASCAR hot bed but they get 100,000 for the event in NH because it's a special event. And there's no such thing as the home team stinking and not drawing. There is no home team.

[gi]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

So in other words, owners can't control their own stupidity, so we have to reduce everybody to the same level. Cuz god knows, we can't have good teams or bad teams.

Yes. Owners have to be protected from other owners. If you need a reason why, look at the current situation.

[SirFozzie]

Yup, I look at the owners stupidity, their apparent inability to show self-restraint, control, or anything closely related to common business sense, and I find myself the whole thing goes bankrupt, and we get more owners who have a business IQ higher then a turnip.