New Final Proposal from NHL

[billhoward]

>>> Tom Golisano (owner of the Sabres) owns Paychex, which makes billions of dollars a year.

Paychex processes billions. Earnings are a couple zeros to the left. Golisano's net worth is pegged by Forbes at $1.1 billion. So whether the Sabres make or lose money, Family Golisano will not be filling out financial aid forms for college, and since the Sabres are separate from Paychex, Golisano can cry "poor" and be accurate in the accounting sense.

I think the reason you buy a sports team, once you've already made a bunch of money, is the same reason (metaphorically) John Hinckley took a shot at President Reagan: To impress Jodie Foster.

[KeithK]

If the owners continue to make offers from here on out they won't get worse (from the players standpoint).  They may not get substantially better, but there will be at least cosmetic improvements.  The reason?  The owners strategy has been to try to either get an unlikely deal that is favorable to management or wait it out until next year, declare an impasse and then impose new work rules unilaterally.  They have a legal right to do this as long as they "bargain in good faith".  Obviously a court gets to decide in the long run what that means.  But offering less and less in eahc succeeding deal would probably not qualify.

[CUlater 89]

[Q]Tub(a) Wrote:

 Fine, but what do the players have to fall back on? I think what Ari is saying (and what I also think) is that the players are being foolish for thinking that they can maintain the salaries they have now anywhere, while only the NHL actually gives them that opportunity.

If an owner had to fold a team, he would be fine because of his several other business ventures. For example, Tom Golisano (owner of the Sabres) owns Paychex, which makes billions of dollars a year. A hockey team worth less than 100 million would not be a big loss to him. It is just like losing an expensive toy. If a player doesn't have a place to play, he doesn't make anything.

The owners can wait forever for the NHL to return. When it comes back, it will be back under terms where they can make (more?) money. They know that the players will eventually have to cave in, and it's only a matter of time until they do.[/q]

It may be true that some or all owners can wait forever, but my point is that there is a cost in real dollars to them doing so.  It's not only the players who are harmed by a long lockout.

In any case, that argument could be applied to any of the sports leagues -- the owners have more money and so can wait longer and the players have minimal options for earning money during a work stoppage and so can't wait as long.  But obviously the owners don't "win" every CBA renegotiation.

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]CowbellGuy Wrote:

 [Q2]calgARI '07 Wrote:
Probably around 15 teams are losing less money by not playing than last season when they were.[/Q]
And if you buy that, I've got a bridge to sell...[/q]
Not only that, but when the owners opened up their books a few years ago, didn't an independent auditor find an average of about $10 million of undisclosed revenue for each team (okay, maybe the auditor wasn't independent)? If you think the owners aren't cooking their books somewhat to make it look worse than it is, then you may want to invest in Age's bridge.

I've never seen anyone come into negotiations with less of an idea of what the word negotiate means. The offer you quoted sounds to me pretty much exactly the same as everything else they've offered - doing the same thing multiple times + expecting different results = insanity and stupidity'

The players came out with a breakthrough offfer or 24% salary cuts, the owners? changed their position 0.8% Come on.

Btw, even if you buy that bull about half of the teams losing less money not playing, you hae to admit that that number changes significantly if you cut 24% of the salary off the top. Most teams by far, with a 24% salary cut, would be doing better playing. So that excuse is completely out the window. You cut salaries 24% to put them in a better position now, and put a strong luxury tax, tied to average league revenue (not per team, that's total bullshit), and the NHL is fine and the owners know it. This isn't about protecting themselves, this is about squeezing everything possible.

The owners get stronger? I think not. There's a reason the owners haven't announced an 'drop dead' date, you know. Because when that day comes, the owners have to return the millions they've been holding in season ticket money and collecting interest on. Also, since they're not competing, the player would be free to hold their own games and tournaments (or so I've read). Plus, with the WHA starting up, players can move over there. The longer is goes, the more is hurts the NHL, and the more other options the players have.

[Tub(a)]

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:

 [Q2]CowbellGuy Wrote:

 [Q2]calgARI '07 Wrote:
Probably around 15 teams are losing less money by not playing than last season when they were.[/Q]
And if you buy that, I've got a bridge to sell...[/Q]

Plus, with the WHA starting up, players can move over there. The longer is goes, the more is hurts the NHL, and the more other options the players have.[/q]

Have you actually been following the history of the WHA? It dissolved in 2004, and a new group of investors is trying to revive it. http://www.worldhockeyassociation.net/news/media_releases/media_101904.htm
Hardly seems like a league on the edge of breaking into the mainstream.

IIRC, there is a cap of $15 million per team plus a franchise player that doesn't count against the cap.  That's $30 million less per team than the recent NHL proposal, which also includes the franchise option. There is no way that NHL players would be able to start a new league that would draw enough revenue to justify much more than a $15 million cap.  What the NHL knows is that the 27% salary decrease the players have offered is a pittance compared with the 66% decrease they would see in the WHA. The players really don't have much leverage in this situation. Once the NHLPA's coffers run out and they can't financially support their members any longer, the NHL will get what they want.

[calgARI '07]

There will be no WHA.  That project is barely alive.

[calgARI '07]

League rejects proposal.  Shocker.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp?content=20050202_115722_4956

[calgARI '07]

And some more telling information about NHL players.  More specifically a UHLer commenting on Chelios, Draper, and Hatcher going to the UHL and stealing jobs.

http://www.tsn.ca/Nhl/news_story.asp?ID=113530&hubName=nhl

[KeithK]

[q]The offer you quoted sounds to me pretty much exactly the same as everything else they've offered - doing the same thing multiple times + expecting different results = insanity and stupidity' [/q]It's not insane behavior at all because the owners don't really expect to get different results.  They expect to get rejected repeatedly until either 1) the players financial situation and unity degrades enough that they're willing to take the offer or 2) they can unilaterally impose new work rules.  One can certainly argue about the owners strategy and tactics, but their actions are certainly not insane.  Stupid maybe.

[RichH]

Interesting.  Motor City visits Elmira on March 27 and April 10.

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:

 There will be no WHA.  That project is barely alive.[/q]
It was barely alive. In fact the first season obviously never happened. But they have a tournament coming up this sprint with a national tv contract or some sort (or perhaps regional networks).

The players wouldn't go to the WHA to get more money - they'd go there for the same reason they're going to Europe and the minors. As a way to make income and enjoy hockey while they wait out the NHL. Its a temp job and it sure as hell beats 'would you like fries with that'. It has nothing to do with the WHA becoming a national powerhouse, but it has everything to do with the NHLPA being under virtually no pressure to settle, because their players will find jobs, make some money and enjoy hockey. This opinion that they'll run out of money soon - I just don't understand why. Many of them are already playing in Europe, helping out their former college teams, or gainfully employed in some hockey related way.

Meanwhile, no one seems to dispute the actual substance. You can't go into a negotiation with one and only one solution you're willing to consider. Now I don't know the legal specifics, but if an impasse is declared, I have a very hard time believing that multiple offers that have barely budged should qualify as 'in god faith'. Maybe it will, but it shouldn't.

[Pete Godenschwager]

Looks like the official cancelation will be today or tomorrow:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1983362

[Tub(a)]

[Q]Pete Godenschwager Wrote:

 Looks like the official cancelation will be today or tomorrow:



[/q]

:`(

[pfibiger]

well, i guess Cornell's got a volunteer assistant coach for the rest of the season. Maybe the lacrosse team needs a volunteer as well? :-)

[Josh '99]

[Q]Tub(a) Wrote:

 [Q2]Pete Godenschwager Wrote:

 Looks like the official cancelation will be today or tomorrow:

:`(

[/Q]
[/q]

You said it, Grant.  :`(