EHM The Blue Line

I'd like to know what ever happened to the classic 50/50 deal? When you have two people who want one bit of money, hasn't the obvious solution always been to just split it right down the middle, and give each side an equal amount?

bobmcgoo wrote:i'd be genuinely embarrassed to be earning $5m a year and then complaining that i'm not earning $5.5m, when you consider that there's something like three billion people living below the poverty line

Ah...now we're getting to where I use "fair and just"! And why I said IMO there’s nothing fair and just about professional sports...

bobmcgoo wrote:does anyone know if AHL games be televised seeing as the broadcasters don't have any NHL games to follow?

I take it you don't live in Canada?
The sports networks here have been showing AHL games for years (and I'm sure if there's no NHL they'll show even more)...and my local cable company shows 50+ WHL games plus the WHL playoffs and has for years

B. Stinson wrote:I'd like to know what ever happened to the classic 50/50 deal? When you have two people who want one bit of money, hasn't the obvious solution always been to just split it right down the middle, and give each side an equal amount?

What classic 50-50 deal?
Is there any business anywhere that pays out 50% of the gross revenues to the employees?

The NHL is not a player/owner partnership! Right now in Edmonton they're trying to build a new arena with a 25% owner/75% taxpayer "partnership"...the players share (like it's always been everywhere) is 0%...when have players ever paid a penny for an arena? Or an airplane? Or hotel costs? Equipment costs? Affiliation costs?

Years ago here in Edmonton before Katz they had a couple/few "cash calls" to the 30 odd business leaders that had together purchased the team - each time this was done the players contributed $0

The only thing I can agree with the players right now, is that they have been promised tons of money by the owners with those ridiculous contracts but now it's the opposite. I would probably be mad too if someone promised me 8 millions bucks and then decide to drop it at 5 millions and this is a contract, no going back. They got the privilege to earn millions of dollars so we can all agree that they live with the amount of money they earn, I can understand that this could be a problem for some players when you are used to have the same pay check over and over.

Like us "normal people", we are used to live with the amount of money we make. If my boss come to see me and say to me, well you know that 40 000$ a year I promised you, I can't do it now so I want to drop you to 25 000$ a year. I would be mad too!

I know this isn't a perfect example since we are talking about millions but still, they owners got what they deserve in this. They have used the players to earn alot of money and now they are in an impass.

philou21 wrote:Like us "normal people", we are used to live with the amount of money we make. If my boss come to see me and say to me, well you know that 40 000$ a year I promised you, I can't do it now so I want to drop you to 25 000$ a year. I would be mad too!

I know this isn't a perfect example since we are talking about millions but still,

IMO there's no "but still" - the fact that its millions is what makes the difference.
When I was a kid many NHL players had a second job, now it's gone to far the other way...Teenagers who can play hockey do not deserve/need to be millionaires by the time they're 21! The players have a distorted view of reality IMO (especially in today's economic climate!)

philou21 wrote: They have used the players to earn alot of money and now they are in an impass.

The players used? They've been compensated with millions! MILLIONS!
Without the players the owners are billionaire business men...how many NHLers would be millionaires if hockey wasn't popular? How many would have to work for $25-$40K a year for the rest of their life?

nino33 wrote: I take it you don't live in Canada?

no =(. well i mean "broadcasters" like people who will stream games online, will they bother to stream AHL games? i'm aware it's illegal but now that CenterIce seems irrelevant(?) we in Europe have no other alternative.

nino33 wrote: The NHL is not a player/owner partnership! Right now in Edmonton they're trying to build a new arena with a 25% owner/75% taxpayer "partnership"...the players share (like it's always been everywhere) is 0%...when have players ever paid a penny for an arena? Or an airplane? Or hotel costs? Equipment costs? Affiliation costs.

wouldn't the Edmonton players be paying tax to Edmonton government? so kinda contributing indirectly? i agree with your point in general though.

philou21 wrote:The only thing I can agree with the players right now, is that they have been promised tons of money by the owners with those ridiculous contracts but now it's the opposite. I would probably be mad too if someone promised me 8 millions bucks and then decide to drop it at 5 millions and this is a contract, no going back.

but surely with a lockout it's a debate over the salary cap, not individual contracts? no player is going to lose money, it's just a question of how much gain each side (owners vs. players) gains over the previous CBA? please correct me if i'm wrong though... if i'm right then Stinson is bang on the money, 50% both ways. surely that's better to both sides than to lock the season out

I think you need to calm yourself Nino. Of course the owners use the players to be millionaires, I think you have not read my sentence properly. Owners are giving millions over millions to the players without a good reason to justify it, of course the players are now thinking it's common that it works like that and that is the fault of the owners.

bobmcgoo wrote:

nino33 wrote: I take it you don't live in Canada?

no =(. well i mean "broadcasters" like people who will stream games online, will they bother to stream AHL games? i'm aware it's illegal but now that CenterIce seems irrelevant(?) we in Europe have no other alternative.

I don't know if this is available in Europe, but you can subscribe to the AHL streaming games here: http://ahl.neulion.com/ahl/

It is provided by Neulion. They used to provide the NHL streaming service on ESPN360. I don't know why, but the subscription for the AHL service is extremely expensive. For some reason, it doesn't let you subscribe yet; maybe they don't have the rights for this season.

There doesn't seem to be any FAQ to indicate what quality/bitrate the games are provided at. It all looks a bit suspect to me...

bobmcgoo wrote:

nino33 wrote: The NHL is not a player/owner partnership! Right now in Edmonton they're trying to build a new arena with a 25% owner/75% taxpayer "partnership"...the players share (like it's always been everywhere) is 0%...when have players ever paid a penny for an arena? Or an airplane? Or hotel costs? Equipment costs? Affiliation costs.

wouldn't the Edmonton players be paying tax to Edmonton government? so kinda contributing indirectly? i agree with your point in general though.

Like any other millionaire they'd pay taxes...like any other millionaire they'd pay more than the average person, but they'll likely pay less as a percentage because with millions you can avail yourself with a lot of "tax advantages" - if taxpayers agree to pay, the costs will be in addition to "everything else" a city needs to pay for, and like everywhere Edmonton isn't running a budget surplus! There's no extra money for a rink!

Edmontonians would/will be paying it off long after the current crop of millionaire Oilers has retired!
And its not likely that these millionaires will be living in Edmonton beyond their hockey season/career

When I was young you'd actually see Gretzky, Messier, etc around town sometimes (at the mall, in the bar)...I never see Oilers or hear of them being around town anymore (with millions you seem to "travel in different circles" than the average person); when I was young hockey players were considered "different" (in a positive way) compared to other sports, because of the toughness/less money and the "good kid from the small town/farm" mentality of many players...now they're greedy millionaires (IMO NHLers are not the same kind of people they used to be)

As a lifelong hockey fan and a Flyers/Canucks fan since the mid 1970s I barely watched a complete game in total when the Flyers/Canucks (in different years) were recently in the SCF...despite the fact that I grew up with and love the game, after 40 years I feel "meh...whatever" about the NHL - I wonder how long youngsters who've grown up with 4 NHL work stoppages and continuous outrageous greed will maintain their support of hockey; I wonder if future generations of players will look back at the current/recent crop of players as those that killed the goose who laid the golden eggs

Today on Sportsnet they were saying the best sign of a possible solution is that maybe Fehr/Bettman will realize the fan response has been largely "apathetic" (the "who cares" response by most will maybe make Fehr/Bettman realize a long work stoppage could be really damaging to all) - I'm certainly part of the apathetic group!

philou21 wrote:I think you need to calm yourself Nino

Uh...I am calm.
Do you think if someone doesn't believe what you believe that makes them not calm?
Is the forum not to share personal thoughts/opinions?

It's more the way you are talking to me than not thinking the same way as I do. You're just arrogant right now.

I'm not sure I agree about any arrogance. I think we're all just expressing our views.

philou21 wrote:Of course the owners use the players to be millionaires, I think you have not read my sentence properly. Owners are giving millions over millions to the players without a good reason to justify it, of course the players are now thinking it's common that it works like that and that is the fault of the owners.

While I don't agree with them, I think when GMs make such offers they would "justify it" by saying they were trying to make their team better.
Apparently about 8-10 teams actually make money, and 10-12 teams are close to break even each year under the current economics, and it's usually these teams that make such offers...IMO the problem comes when NHL players try to tell the 8-10 teams that make money they need to share revenues forever with the 10 teams that lose money every year

ESPNAmerica will show some AHL games

Well some of them are trying to make their team better but why would tey need to justify it when they only need to let the money speak? We could take the Panthers as a great example with what they did last summer. Signing a bunch of people at ridiculous prices, just to stay close to the cap limit. That's another thing that probably didn't help.

Manimal wrote:ESPNAmerica will show some AHL games

The only good thing about that channel is Charissa Thompson on Sportsnation

philou21 wrote:Well some of them are trying to make their team better but why would tey need to justify it when they only need to let the money speak? We could take the Panthers as a great example with what they did last summer. Signing a bunch of people at ridiculous prices, just to stay close to the cap limit. That's another thing that probably didn't help.

I did take a look at the Panthers on wiki/CapGeek...last year they made the playoffs (maybe GM connects extra revenue to justify his signings?) after missing for 10 years, and their current Team Salary total is $500K below the minimum/Salary Floor...were they making such signings to reach a salary floor? A salary floor forced upon the Panthers by the financial success of the Leafs/Flyers/etc?

IMO the problem is probably getting the 30 owners/GMs to see things and behave in a similar way is kinda like herding cats…the reality is it’s just not possible. You're happy if most go where you want, but you just know a few will wander from the desired path (actually I think it's kinda hard to get 30 human beings to agree on much of anything! HaHa)

That is sure the problem since the beginning. It's impossible IMO to make everyone thinking the same, they are all too greedy for that. And even though the Panthers are 500K bellow the cap, come on. I mean, they did signed Upshall something like 4.5 per year for a 40-50 pts guy at best.

philou21 wrote:Well some of them are trying to make their team better but why would tey need to justify it when they only need to let the money speak? We could take the Panthers as a great example with what they did last summer. Signing a bunch of people at ridiculous prices, just to stay close to the cap limit. That's another thing that probably didn't help.

totally agree with this. i think the general consensus is that there are too many teams to properly support the talent level that exists, not to mention the places that IMHO - and in lots of other people's opinions too - shouldn't have a team anyway. in every team there's going to be a handful of guys who wouldn't be in the NHL if only there wasn't a need for 30 teams x 23 man rosters. but then the salary floor (i think that's what you meant?) seems to be too high so owners have to spend unnecessarily to reach it, contracts go up, then player X says player Y is receiving Z so he himself should get at least Q and suddenly players like Marco Sturm - who absolutely no one wanted a few years back when he was waived iirc - are now earning $3.5m (2/3/5 in 48g last season?!). like you nino i wouldn't mourn if the NHL lost a few teams, i honestly think it'd be better in the long run.

Indeed the number of teams is a problem, the talent is "watered" at the four corners of America. And yes I meant the salary floor, I forgot the word while writing my post.

nino33 wrote:

B. Stinson wrote:I'd like to know what ever happened to the classic 50/50 deal? When you have two people who want one bit of money, hasn't the obvious solution always been to just split it right down the middle, and give each side an equal amount?

What classic 50-50 deal?
Is there any business anywhere that pays out 50% of the gross revenues to the employees?

By that, I was referring to the human instinct to split a source of income evenly among all deserving parties.

For example, I helped carry some furniture with a friend of mine, and the person we were helping handed me some money. Without thinking, I counted it up, gave half to the guy who helped, and we walked away happy.

I know this isn't how business works, but business is stupid. I got the job done and moved on with fair pay, while the NHL is on the brink of cancelling yet another season so they can bicker and whine back and forth with the players, like a bunch of spoiled little teen girls.

Just now the sports channel in the background was lamenting some baseball team that had in recent years won two world series but had no audience/market…at the moment I remembered how Fehr of the NHLPA used to run the baseball players union, and then it occurred to me – I stopped watching baseball when he took over. It’s always seemed to me baseball lost its soul long ago, way to much player movement and to many teams winning in apathetic markets...hockey's in a simiar state

I also heard today how back in 1992 then NHL Commissioner John Ziegler (a hockey man) was embarrassed that the NHL suffered a work stoppage, and the owners vowed to never again be “weak” – Gretzky had left small town Edmonton for more money, the owners hired Bettman (a businessman) and the game's never been the same…

The NHL average player salary for the 2000-2001 season was $1.4 million, triple what it was in 1992-1993 . In 2011-12 it was 2.4 million…for me the players are long past a wage level where I really cared anymore – if I could I'd lose 10-15 teams, lower ticket prices, remove the advertisements and remove the fake noise/entertainment…what would be left would be a great hockey world for the true hockey (not “entertainment”) market! And I'd herd all the cats too!

In reality I'll enjoy my life, I won't pay to go to games or buy merchandise because it’s just to expensive but I will probably forever watch the NHL on TV sometimes if it's on and I feel like it at that moment…I do still love the NHL as it relates to EHM and FHM!


Regards

P.S. Best lockout story I've heard thus far...apparently Patrik Berglund of the St. Louis Blues is returning to where he got his start in (youth) hockey and he'll be playing in the Swedish Hockey Allsvenskan league for free!

Talking about more positive things. Some Quebec hockey players will start a MTL/QC City tournament across the province to entertain people. It's 20$ or 25$ per game and everything will go to charity. Players like St-Louis, Perron, Darche, Desharnais are supposed to play.

nino33 wrote:

XenHL wrote: I'm not sure about the owners not needing the income... players have other options to play (see players heading to Europe, AHL, etc), owners can't sell tickets to an empty arena

For those owners that own the arena hockey would be only about 50 nights a year…wouldn't they book in concerts/etc? Plus they’re not paying 50+ million in player salaries plus operating costs…

Fair point. And for those that don't own the arena?

nino33 wrote:

XenHL wrote:As for the money-losing teams, no, I'd say it's exactly the opposite of players' interests - salary cap is based on average income of all teams; the more teams make, the higher the cap is - the more players can get paid.

If they folded the bottom 10 teams, wouldn’t hundreds of players lose jobs and never play hockey again? Those players won’t be making more! (and the billionaire owners would become billionaire former owners)

If they folded the bottom ten teams, it'd probably trickle down - the best of them would remain in the NHL or head to Russia, the rest would drop to the AHL... where some players would be displaced to the ECHL, where some would be displaced ...etc etc... to beer leagues. So yes, it'd happen, but probably not in the 'hundreds'.

But the point I was trying to make wasn't to fold teams - but rather, to move them to markets where there is interest, where they would make money. This would certainly be good for those owners, yes. But for the Bruins, Leafs, Rangers and all the other 'richest' teams, it'd be a net negative, in that their costs (player salaries) would go up due to the higher average income of all teams, that is used to calculate the salary cap.

nino33 wrote:

XenHL wrote:bring back the WHA!

Actually it was the WHA that caused/started the salary escalations! And when the WHA finally merged/folded in 1979, many player jobs were lost

Yes, the WHA started it. But look at the other side: the WHA liberated the players from the outright (literally) illegal practices of the NHL like the reserve clause. The NHL was then just as it is now, a group of arrogant rich white men; the WHA forced them to concede a few points by kicking them where it counts. And the effect lasted for a time, but as time passed, the NHL owners were once again able to find loopholes, other ways to exploit the situation to their financial benefit at the expense of their employees, the players. Reserve clause is illegal? Okay - free agency: but remember what compensation pretty much any free agent signing required? First-round draft picks and such?

nino33 wrote:

XenHL wrote:It's not any really different than if we get $20, how to split it? You offer to take 8 instead of 10, and I say no, I want 15 or I'll punch you.

Hmmm…the players already get (and are trying to keep) more than half the gross revenues (while paying for none of the operational costs) – who’s demanding $15 or they’ll get violent? Seems the players are making $11 while paying none of the costs that earned the $20

The owners are the ones doing that.

Let's run with those numbers:

There's $20, the players, up until the expiration of this CBA, got $11, and the owners got $9.

The owners said they want a bigger share. So the players offered to take a pay cut - they'll take $9 and the owners get $11.

And the owners said, no, you'll get $5 and we get $15 or we lock you out.

ALSO relevant IMO is "it’s a boss/employee relationship, not a partnership!" (that’s why players of money losing clubs never have their salaries reduced, players never put in money for a new arena/plane/etc)

Well, players on money-losing clubs don't have their salaries reduced because it's part of a legally-binding contract, that does not contain a clause specifying that if the club loses money, the player does, too.

Sure, it is a boss/employee relationship. But it's the sort of relationship that you'll find, say, at Lockheed or IBM: the employees are highly-trained in specific skills required for their job; it's not ditch-digging, where you can get any random shlub off the street to do it. And in that sort of setting, the boss/employee dynamic has to be much different from the ditch-digger scenario: because of the exclusiveness/uniqueness of the skill-set and training of the hockey player/aerospace engineer/computer programmer, the employer has to acknowledge that the employee is entitled to much more influence over things than in the other case, where the employer can safely say "dig or get out of here".

The NHL owners are failing (or perhaps consciously ignoring) this distinction, and are treating the players as if they were unskilled labourers who can be replaced by any random person off the street.

Just to be clear, I don’t sympathize with anyone or agree with anyone…but IMO there’s nothing fair and just about professional sports

Eh, justice is independent of anything else; fairness and justice exist even in the worst dictatorships, for example...

Fair and just in the case of this lockout would be a 50/50 split, or the owners acknowledging that the players have offered to take a reduction in their share (they haven't even really done that!).

It is NOT fair and just, that if you offer to let me have $12 of the $20 we have to split, and I say, no, I want $15.

P.S. Best lockout story I've heard thus far...apparently Patrik Berglund of the St. Louis Blues is returning to where he got his start in (youth) hockey and he'll be playing in the Swedish Hockey Allsvenskan league for free!

Alex Semin did the same, signing a 0-ruble contract to play for his hometown team, Sokol Krasnoyarsk, in the VHL - he rejected decent-money offers from several KHL teams, too.

Semin HAD to do that after that ridiculous contract the Canes gave to him.

XenHL wrote: And for those that don't own the arena?

Hmmm...are there any NHL owners that don't own the arena? I don't know...

XenHL wrote:If they folded the bottom ten teams, it'd probably trickle down [/color]- the best of them would remain in the NHL or head to Russia, the rest would drop to the AHL... where some players would be displaced to the ECHL, where some would be displaced ...etc etc... to beer leagues. So yes, it'd happen, but probably not in the 'hundreds'.

I guess I imagined if you folded 10 NHL teams the accompanying AHL/ECHL teams (affiliations) would fold too...so 10 NHL teams is the loss of about 600 pro jobs

XenHL wrote:to move them to markets where there is interest, where they would make money.

I guess I don't think there's many markets left...every potential market requires taxpayers to pay for an arena, and local business to pour money in, and I think that's a big impedement

XenHL wrote:Yes, the WHA started it. But look at the other side: the WHA liberated the players from the outright (literally) illegal practices of the NHL like the reserve clause. The NHL was then just as it is now, a group of arrogant rich white men;

Fair point/I agree

XenHL wrote:Let's run with those numbers:
There's $20, the players, up until the expiration of this CBA, got $11, and the owners got $9.
The owners said they want a bigger share. So the players offered to take a pay cut - they'll take $9 and the owners get $11.
And the owners said, no, you'll get $5 and we get $15 or we lock you out.

I wasn't aware the players offered any such pay cut, nor was I aware the owners were wanting a 75% owners / 25% players split...my understanding is players recieve 57% of gross revenues, and they're only willing to reduce the % if revenues increase (so they won't lose a penny)...

XenHL wrote:Sure, it is a boss/employee relationship. But it's the sort of relationship that you'll find, say, at Lockheed or IBM: the employees are highly-trained in specific skills required for their job; it's not ditch-digging, where you can get any random shlub off the street to do it. And in that sort of setting, the boss/employee dynamic has to be much different from the ditch-digger scenario: because of the exclusiveness/uniqueness of the skill-set and training of the hockey player/aerospace engineer/computer programmer, the employer has to acknowledge that the employee is entitled to much more influence over things than in the other case, where the employer can safely say "dig or get out of here".
The NHL owners are failing (or perhaps consciously ignoring) this distinction, and are treating the players as if they were unskilled labourers who can be replaced by any random person off the street.

Valid point...but I thought significant financial compensation is what satisfies those aerospace engineers/computer programmers - if after a pay cut they're still by far the highest paid in the world, making many times more than the next level under them, how badly are they being treated?

XenHL wrote:Alex Semin did the same, signing a 0-ruble contract to play for his hometown team, Sokol Krasnoyarsk, in the VHL - he rejected decent-money offers from several KHL teams, too.

That's awesome!

nino33 wrote:

XenHL wrote: And for those that don't own the arena?

Hmmm...are there any NHL owners that don't own the arena? I don't know...

Just did a quick check... I suspect not many overall. Northlands/Rexall is not team-owned, nor is Nassau Veterans Memorial, Honda Center in Anaheim is city-owned... there are probably a few others too.

nino33 wrote:

XenHL wrote:If they folded the bottom ten teams, it'd probably trickle down [/color]- the best of them would remain in the NHL or head to Russia, the rest would drop to the AHL... where some players would be displaced to the ECHL, where some would be displaced ...etc etc... to beer leagues. So yes, it'd happen, but probably not in the 'hundreds'.

I guess I imagined if you folded 10 NHL teams the accompanying AHL/ECHL teams (affiliations) would fold too...so 10 NHL teams is the loss of about 600 pro jobs

As far as I know, most of the farm teams are actually independent entities; I think the Jets/SeaCaps situation is more the exception than the rule. So the minor league teams would probably keep on going, maybe even a bit better (for a bit at least), if they have players who are better known for having played a decent spell in the NHL...

nino33 wrote:

XenHL wrote:to move them to markets where there is interest, where they would make money.

I guess I don't think there's many markets left...every potential market requires taxpayers to pay for an arena, and local business to pour money in, and I think that's a big impedement

Well, that's an issue on the implementation side - which has plenty to do with the owners' greed. If they were slightly less fixated on amassing more and more electrons representing what is essentially imaginary money, and a tiny bit more willing to spend some of it on, say, building an arena (which they will then fill - and probably end up getting a tax break for having built it themselves, thereby bringing some jobs into the community), then many more potential markets would work well.

Dunno if you follow basketball, I haven't paid any attention since the Grizzlies left Vancouver and the Supersonics left Seattle... but Seattle worked, it was a popular team, and the reason they moved was the owners' greed - unwillingness to build an arena.

nino33 wrote:

XenHL wrote:Let's run with those numbers:
There's $20, the players, up until the expiration of this CBA, got $11, and the owners got $9.
The owners said they want a bigger share. So the players offered to take a pay cut - they'll take $9 and the owners get $11.
And the owners said, no, you'll get $5 and we get $15 or we lock you out.

I wasn't aware the players offered any such pay cut, nor was I aware the owners were wanting a 75% owners / 25% players split...my understanding is players recieve 57% of gross revenues, and they're only willing to reduce the % if revenues increase (so they won't lose a penny)...

Yeah, the players hitherto got 57%... owners wanted to reduce that, the NHLPA offered to drop back to 49%, and the owners' response was "40%" and to say that the NHLPA isn't making any meaningful effort to work out a deal.

So yeah, in my books, based on that, the owners are 10000% in the wrong by themselves. Like many others, I was annoyed at the players the last time, but this time, not at all. I put *all* blame on the owners this time.

nino33 wrote:Valid point...but I thought significant financial compensation is what satisfies those aerospace engineers/computer programmers - if after a pay cut they're still by far the highest paid in the world, making many times more than the next level under them, how badly are they being treated?

Well... depends. If they're /offering/ a pay cut, and The Mgt. says "not enough gimme more" and then locks the doors? It's a bit different. I don't *really* see why the dollar figure is especially relevant (and I say that being decidedly not in their income range... I barely break into the five digits annually!)

nino33 wrote:

XenHL wrote:Alex Semin did the same, signing a 0-ruble contract to play for his hometown team, Sokol Krasnoyarsk, in the VHL - he rejected decent-money offers from several KHL teams, too.

That's awesome!

It is! That's a guy who has my respect now, for sure.