NHL CBA negotiations, heading towards another lockout?

Nor in mine Beren. But I cannot believe that another lockout is inevitable. 2005 isn't that long ago - many players in the league today were in the league back then, and they saw what not taking the deal ultimately did. The deal that the players rejected - which resulted in the cancellation of that season - was actually better than the deal they ended up signing the following year. The cancellation of that season didn't pay any dividends for the players in the deal they eventually agreed to.

IMO, in any professional sports when there is a dispute as how best to divide a big pile of money between players and owners, the advantage almost always lies with the owners. And the reason for this is simple: the owners have much deeper pockets. The owners are businessmen, and while owning an NHL franchise is typically an income source (aside from the few franchises that are losing money, but more on that in a second) it is not the owners only source of income. Most NHL owners will still make money from other business investments if hockey isn't played.

OTOH, players typically have the income they earn playing hockey as their only major income source. While the superstars with millions in the bank can sustain a year off from work, the middle of the road players, and the low end players cannot get by without a year of income. And there is another factor at work that negatively affects all players, no matter how good they are - the relatively short duration of being able to compete as a professional athlete. Owners have essentially their entire lifetime to make money from hockey. Even the really good hockey players typically don't play much more than 10 years, maybe 15. Therefore, a single season makes up a significant percentage of a player's career earnings, and there's no way to recoup that money no matter how good of a deal you eventually get.

And the final point in negotiations that goes against the players is what you already alluded to - there are several franchises that are struggling. If you're an owner, and you're not making money from your franchise, there is absolutely no incentive for you to cut a deal in which you'll continue not to make money.

I can't guarantee there won't be another lockout, but I think it would be foolish for the players to go through that again. That said, I also don't expect the negotiations to be conclued quickly. The players won't be compelled to make a deal until the point where they start losing money by not playing. My prediction is that we'll see a late start to the season, and the possibility of getting some games cancelled is high. But I do not foresee a complete cancellation of the season. We've been down that road before, and the players know where it ends.

 

I don't pretend to understand the insides and outs of the negotiations, but surely a lockout would benefit neither party? There must be SOME common ground to reach an agreement? To me, it just stinks of 2 stubborn old men, each cutting off their nose to spite their face.

 

There's no logic to any strike really Barmy if you put it that way. Sometimes the two sides just can't reach an agreement and don't want to be the one who folds first.

 

I honestly don't think professional athletes need a union. Unions were necessary in factories a hundred years ago to prevent the ungodly working conditions facing many labourers at the time. For these players who make millions of dollars to play a game less than a hundred times a year to be wanting more money, that's disgraceful. Yes, the owners get way more money than they do, but last time I checked the players aren't paying for arenas, merchandise, advertising (if there is any), insurance premiums, other arena staff salaries etc. If the players want more money that's fine, just make them put some of it towards the rest of the stuff that gets overlooked.

On that note, if this season gets cancelled I won't be overly upset since the Leafs have somehow managed to get ****ing worse this summer, which I didn't think was even possible.

 

Couldn't agree more, Beren. Sad fact of the matter is that I've been watching hockey and following the Leafs since I was in elementary school and in that timeframe they have made the playoffs twice.

When Burke was in Vancouver and Anaheim he was at least getting the buildings blocks in place to give the teams legit runs at the Cup(more successfully for the Ducks, obviously) but I haven't seen a shred of that in Toronto.

In Vancouver he brought in the Sedins. In Anaheim he brought in Bobby Ryan (I almost said Getzlaf and Perry but I believe they were before his tenure). In Toronto he's brought in Kadri, who has been a bust so far. Schenn, who I liked, had one bad season and gets traded away. Even this year taking Morgan Rielly instead of Filip Forsberg, that was the moment I gave up on him. Maybe Rielly will turn out to be the one, but considering the drafts picks you mentioned above, Burke has blown his tenure here. On that note here's something mildly amusing which is constantly overlooked: If the Kessel trade had never happened, those picks probably would have been higher since the Leafs would have actually been worse.

Back on topic, I just want to say before anyone pounces on it that yes, my earlier statement is a massive over simplification of a complex thing, but that's just how I feel. Has any other professional sports league lost an entire season for a lockout before? I know the MLB has had shortened seasons before, as has the NBA last year, but somehow the NHL has lost one whole season, a large part of another, and an impending problem right now and these are all in the past 20 years for crying out loud.

 

The reason professional athletes have unions and why they sometimes get grumpy is often in my experience not so much to get more money but how to distribute it and such. It is often the union which makes sure that even the non-superstars get paid. The unions don't exist for the few players who make hundreds of millions but are there for all the players are professional but not superstars. We had a conflict here in Sweden where the players demanded that it would be required for their employers to put up retirement plans and that they should actually get some kind of payment when injured.

The point is, not all professional athletes make A-Rod money.

 

That's completely correct. People who are the best at what they do in their sport will always make a ton of money. In last year's NFL negotiations, there was as much discussion about what the spending limit would be for teams as there was for the spending minimum. It's not enough to tell an owner you can't spend more than $X million on players - it's just as important to set a spending minimum a both a per team and per player basis. That's so you can't just fill you team up with a bunch of second rate players and still get your share of the TV contracts.

The unions also exist for the purpose of retired players, health issues, player safety, and also deal with any matter of free agency. That's always been an issue with players. Up until the 1970s, when a team drafted you out of college, they basically owned you. The only way you could play for someone else is if the team trared you. You did NOT have the right to become a free agent and go to whichever team offered you the most for your services.

 

Union busting is all the rage in North America nowadays.

 

The sight of the players walking picket lines here in Winnipeg is ridiculous. And the signs - "I Need to Feed My Kids!" "Death to the 1% Who Aren't Us!" Pathetic.

 

Splunge,

I really think that for the guys just good enough to make the league, that statement, while still hyperbolic, isn't as extreme as it first sounds. Sure, if you're one of those players making millions of dollars per year, shame on you if you can't afford to miss a few paychecks. (I still contend that they won't miss the whole year - again.) I find it incomprehensible the number of athletes, even those making oodles of money, are apparently living paycheck to paycheck.

But what about those players making around the league minimum? Especially if they haven't been in the league more than a year or two. Those people don't have oodles of money sitting in the bank. They are still making tons more than the average person, but I don't think they can afford to get by without a paycheck. So yeah, it's ridiculous if someone like Ovechkin is out there with a picket sign. Not so much for the 20th guy on the team.

 

Reading comments on NHL.com and other sites, I find some opinions baffling from Americans/Canadians on it. Calling players greedy and such-like. If my boss at work told me he wanted me to do the same job for a lot less money, I'd tell him where to go screw himself too.

Sure, the money some of these guys are on is very high, and they could survive on less, but they could also earn a lot more playing in the Russian league. Guess what, it's a sellers market people and the players are the important thing here, not the three letters 'NHL'. You've got to pay high wages to get the best, simple.

 

Actually, despite my previous post, I'm more on the players side than the owners. To me, the owners need to solve their own problems. For example:
- move teams that are losing tons of money to cities that actually want a hockey team.
- kick owners in the balls when they complain about finances and then proceed to sign two players to huge contracts like Minnesota did earlier this year.
- move money-losing teams to better markets. Wait, did I already say that?

The players just want recognition for the fact that it's their efforts on the ice that make the game popular, and they want a fair slice of the pie. It's a matter of defining "fair".

But in the end, it's millionaires vs billionaires, and I don't have a lot of sympathy for either one. Who I really feel for are the people who depend on hockey in order to make a living - restaurants, vendors, etc.

 

Wait a minute - Minnesota is one of the teams that is losing money? I thought that's where they grew American born hockey players. I can totally see Phoenix losing money, but Minnesota is losing money?

The thing that killed the NHL was all the expansion teams they added in the 1990s. The problem with placing hockey teams into towns that will support the team and actually turn a profit is that as it currently stands, I think there are more teams than there are such cities. I can't name many cities capable of supporting an NHL franchise that don't already have one. Quebec maybe. Who else?

You're having trouble selling tickets in Phoenix and Tampa? You're kidding! Hockey isn't so popular in Arizona and southern Florida? Who'da thought?

 

Actually, Minnesota may not be losing money, but its owner said he needed to reduce expenses, and then proceeded to sign Parise and Suter.

A recent study suggested that Quebec City and Hamilton could support teams, and Toronto could support a second team. Of course, those are all Canadian cities. I don't know whether any other US cities would be candidates - maybe Seattle.

 

I'd be shocked if the Wild weren't turning a profit. Given all the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth that went on when the Stars bolted for Dallas, and how happy they were to get an expansion team, I thought they'd be doing well.

As for the owners, it may be a case where they don't necessarily need to reduce expenses, but rather that they simply want to reduce expenses. That's what happened in the NFL last year (although no games were lost). Given that the TV contracts paid to the NFL totaled nearly $8 billion, and those revenues were evenly divided among the 32 teams, I find it hard to believe that there were any teams losing money (given a salary cap of $130 million per team). The owners felt they weren't making enough money.

Yeah, Quebec had a team so it would make sense. (Is Quebec City a different place than simply Quebec?) Seattle is the 5th largest market in the US, so it would make perfect sense to have a team there. The other thing is I don't think you necessarily need a "big" city to support a hockey team. Sports like hockey and basketball can probably get away with smaller markets, as their arenas seat about 10K - 15K. Baseball stadiums routines exceed 40K, while football stadium double that. I don't think Oklahoma City or Columbus would ever get a major league baseball or football stadium, but they have a pro basketball and pro hockey team, respectively.

Then again, fan interest is also important. There may not be enough fans to fill a stadium in a smaller market. And, IMO, it makes very little sense to stick a stadium in a place like Phoenix. You can't tell me there was a huge desire for a hockey team there. Same thing goes for many of the other southern cities. In fact, if you're going to have a team in the sourth, it may actually make more sense to pick a smaller city, as you're probably the only game in town. Oklahoma City always sells out its arena, because it's the only pro sport in town. In Phoenix, people have the option of spending their sporting dollars on basketball, baseball, and football as well.

Actually, what's the going rate for a hockey ticket these days? (Well at this exact point it's probably $0, as they're locked out, but what was it last year?) I haven't been to a pro hockey game in about a decade, but even then they were running about $40 for a decent seat. I think that is the one advantage baseball has. It's still pretty cheap to get a ticket. I know in Camden Yards (where the Baltimore Orioles play), upper deck seating is $10 during the week, $14 on weekends.

 

Why not just run it like every other sport? Each team is in charge of it's own finances. They can overspend if they want to try and get success, but like any other business who does the same, they will soon go under.