Yeah.
I think so.
It might be jumping the gun a bit, but the latest offer from the NHL makes for some significant movement on their part. Methinks the players will probably make one more offer and the sides will come to a middle ground on remaining "hot-button" issues like contract length and variance.
From the way it looks, the distance between the two sides is anything but a "gulf." The only gulf is the size of the NHL owners' collective ego which would want them to put a final offer on the table for the players to agree upon.
NHLPA Executive Director Donald Fehr, who has done a masterful job of negotiating despite starting out in a deep hole, seems to have a pretty good feel for what the players want and what the owners are willing to compromise on. He and the NHLPA spent Saturday going over the 300-page NHL offer, while Deputy Commish Bill Daly mentioned "informational sessions" set for Sunday morning but, "nothing beyond that."
Edit: Link extra: Toronto Globe and Mail's Bruce Dowbiggen blames the owner's scorched earth first offer for the players rallying behind a calm, cool, collected, and somewhat mischevious Donald Fehr http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/dowbiggin-owners-have-only-themselves-to-blame-for-nhlpas-unity-behind-fehr/article6842579/?cmpid=rss1
******************
Last Friday was a good hockey day which started in the morning with the World Juniors and it would have been great had the USA U-20 team defeated the Russians.
The US squad held their own in the 2-1 loss, with a group of hard working players who were simply outclassed up-front by a pretty fast and talented Russian group.
Sabres prospect Mikhail Grigorenko (2012, #12 overall) was on display and had a solid, if point-less, game for Russia.
Sabres 2012 second-round pick (#44-overall) Jake McCabe was on the US squad and the big defenseman more than held his own. McCabe is the captain of the US squad who happens to be coached by former Sabres defenseman Phil Housley.
Later that night, I was one of 19,070 fans at the F'N Center to watch the Rochester Americans 4-1 victory over the Lake Erie Monsters. It was a record crowd for the Amerks and eighth largest in AHL history.
BTW, Mike Schoppsie. The Lake Erie Monsters are Colorado's minor league affiliate. They were bought in 2006 by Cleveland Cavaliers and Horseshoe Casino owner Dan Gilbert.
Anyhow, it was good to see a hockey game this season. Although it never achieved the level of an NHL game, for the most part, the guys on the ice worked hard.
Two players who seem ready to get back to the NHL are Cody Hodgson and Marcus Foligno.
Hodgson had two goals and clearly looked like a man amongst boys while Foligno just did his thing--nothin' crazy, nothin' stupid, just a solid NHL-type/power forward game.
Brayden McNabb had a rough game with three minor penalties, although he did manage to garner two secondary assists.
Amerks defenseman TJ Brennan (2007, #31 overall) looked as if he's ready to make the jump to the NHL on a full-time basis.
After spending three years working on the finer points of his defensive game, the offensive defensman seems ready to really bust out on the score sheet. He presently leads the team with 12 goals.
One player I was keenly interested was 2012 first-round draft pick (#14 overall) Zemgus Girgensons.
The "Latvian Locomotive," as he's been called had a good game in what looked to be a clearly defined role on the third line.
His capacity to see the plays evolving and his constant movement to, and around, the puck were on display. He wasn't a Patrick Kaleta-type wrecking ball, which is not his style, and really didn't do anything stupid throughout the game, but he did manage some decent checks.
As you watch him, you can see he's soaking everything in and as of right now it doesn't seem as if the AHL game is too fast for him.
When the NHL season starts, one would think that he'll be up on the Amerks first line soaking up even more.
Until then, he looked real good as the youngest player in the AHL.
Williamsville native David Leggio had a strong, 3rd-star, game in net.
I'm not sure if he'll get a shot at the NHL, but I'd sure like to seem him get the opportunity to play in an NHL game.
This is not to say he's the next Terry Sawchuk or anything like that, but he is a very sound goalie with some attitude and aggressiveness.
At age 28, the guy has worked his way into the position that he's in as the #1 goalie for the Amerks. He has spent years both overseas and kicking around the minor leagues before he finally found a home with Rochester. (For some background, click here.)
Leggio audio from WGR.
Hodgson audio from WGR.
Amerks Head Coach Ron Rolston audio from WGR.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
So much for "the hill we will die on."
Remember that one from Deputy Commish, Bill Daly?
And how "insulted" he was by the players response back on December 6?
And how Commish Gary Bettman was "livid" after NHLPA Executive Donald Fehr went to the podium basically saying that the sides were pretty close?
Remember Daly and Bettman at the podium "disappointed beyond belief?" And how they couldn't understand where Fehr got this idea that they were "close" to a deal when "[Fehr] knew there was a major gulf between them [and the owners]?"
Do your remember all that crap? (if not, you can refresh your memory by clicking here and here. Or get a more opinionated view of the events by clicking here.)
Daly's "hill to die on" wasn't really a hill. Nor did they die on it. Maybe it was more like a sand dune and they wanted to play "king of the mountain."
Friday's offer to the players has the NHL moving from five to six years on maximum contract length and from 5% to 10% on contract variance, amongst other things.
Plus, remember that Daly pulled the $300M "make whole" agreement off the table in text to NHLPA Counsel Steve Fehr on that same night? You know, when the owners were so outraged at what Donald Fehr had done?
It's back. In it's entirety.
And, let's go way back to the early counter offer by Fehr and the players.
The original B.S. proposal by Bettman and the NHL had the players share dropping from 57% to 46%. (Tweet from Adam Proteau: "The moment the proposal was presented, every player in the room knew Gary had just written off 1st 3 months of the season." - an NHL agent.)
Fehr's counter was that the owners should fix the problems they themselves created by enhancing league-wide revenue sharing that could possibly reach as much as $250M. The latest offer has the owners increasing revenue sharing from $150M to $200M, according to ESPN's Pierre LeBrun.
There were a lot of lunkheads and their lemming followers/owner lovers who said on numerous occasions that the players should take the offer and be happy.
There were many instances where the NHL said--or implied--that this is as far as they would go.
And there were many instances where Fehr knew they were bluffing.
Bettman said that there is a drop dead date for the season--it needs to start Jan. 19 for a 48-game season and it would seem as if they've finally gotten it through their heads that 50/50 was huge and that the players aren't willing to give much more. Take that revenue split along with a cap on contract length and variance and the owners clearly won.
But, not to the point where it was Dresden with the union totally destroyed.
In fact Fehr has done his job remarkably well, as the Hockey News', Ken Campbell writes, and has salvaged more for the players than anyone, including hardline owners, could have imagined.
And how "insulted" he was by the players response back on December 6?
And how Commish Gary Bettman was "livid" after NHLPA Executive Donald Fehr went to the podium basically saying that the sides were pretty close?
Remember Daly and Bettman at the podium "disappointed beyond belief?" And how they couldn't understand where Fehr got this idea that they were "close" to a deal when "[Fehr] knew there was a major gulf between them [and the owners]?"
Do your remember all that crap? (if not, you can refresh your memory by clicking here and here. Or get a more opinionated view of the events by clicking here.)
Daly's "hill to die on" wasn't really a hill. Nor did they die on it. Maybe it was more like a sand dune and they wanted to play "king of the mountain."
Friday's offer to the players has the NHL moving from five to six years on maximum contract length and from 5% to 10% on contract variance, amongst other things.
Plus, remember that Daly pulled the $300M "make whole" agreement off the table in text to NHLPA Counsel Steve Fehr on that same night? You know, when the owners were so outraged at what Donald Fehr had done?
It's back. In it's entirety.
And, let's go way back to the early counter offer by Fehr and the players.
The original B.S. proposal by Bettman and the NHL had the players share dropping from 57% to 46%. (Tweet from Adam Proteau: "The moment the proposal was presented, every player in the room knew Gary had just written off 1st 3 months of the season." - an NHL agent.)
Fehr's counter was that the owners should fix the problems they themselves created by enhancing league-wide revenue sharing that could possibly reach as much as $250M. The latest offer has the owners increasing revenue sharing from $150M to $200M, according to ESPN's Pierre LeBrun.
There were a lot of lunkheads and their lemming followers/owner lovers who said on numerous occasions that the players should take the offer and be happy.
There were many instances where the NHL said--or implied--that this is as far as they would go.
And there were many instances where Fehr knew they were bluffing.
Bettman said that there is a drop dead date for the season--it needs to start Jan. 19 for a 48-game season and it would seem as if they've finally gotten it through their heads that 50/50 was huge and that the players aren't willing to give much more. Take that revenue split along with a cap on contract length and variance and the owners clearly won.
But, not to the point where it was Dresden with the union totally destroyed.
In fact Fehr has done his job remarkably well, as the Hockey News', Ken Campbell writes, and has salvaged more for the players than anyone, including hardline owners, could have imagined.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
NHLPA gets the OK from players, plus...
NHL.com has a great piece featuring three Russian greats--including Alexander Mogilny--in the 1992-93 season.
The players ended a five day electronic vote by giving the NHLPA Executive board the power to file a Disclaimer of Interest in the courts.
According to TSN, as well as other national media sources, the vote was 706-22. That's 97%.
That constitutes an overwhelming majority (about as close to unanimous as you can get) of the players backing NHLPA Executive Donald Fehr and the NHLPA Executive board.
Yes we all know that the NHL launched their pre-emptive strike before the vote, but one would think that Fehr planned on that happening and was prepared.
A quick note: According to hoopshype.com, during the NBA lockout, 63 pro players played overseas.
*************
NHL.com's Slava Malamud takes us back to a time when the world was changing dramatically.
During the late 80's/early 90's the Cold War was ending, the Berlin Wall was coming down and trailblazers from the Soviet Union/Russia were taking center stage in the NHL.
Some of the points on Mogilny which Malamud touches upon are--his defection (which was covered nicely here,) his incredible 92-93 season and his influence upon present Sabres prospect Mikhail Grigorenko.
Enjoy.
The players ended a five day electronic vote by giving the NHLPA Executive board the power to file a Disclaimer of Interest in the courts.
According to TSN, as well as other national media sources, the vote was 706-22. That's 97%.
That constitutes an overwhelming majority (about as close to unanimous as you can get) of the players backing NHLPA Executive Donald Fehr and the NHLPA Executive board.
Yes we all know that the NHL launched their pre-emptive strike before the vote, but one would think that Fehr planned on that happening and was prepared.
A quick note: According to hoopshype.com, during the NBA lockout, 63 pro players played overseas.
*************
NHL.com's Slava Malamud takes us back to a time when the world was changing dramatically.
 |
| Alex "Alexander the Great" Mogilny |
Malamud centers his piece around three Russian superstars in the 92-93 NHL season--Buffalo's own Alex "Alexander the Great" Mogilny, "The Russian Rocket," Pavel Bure' in Vancouver and Detroit's Sergei Federov.
Take the time to immerse yourself in this flashback.
Some of the points on Mogilny which Malamud touches upon are--his defection (which was covered nicely here,) his incredible 92-93 season and his influence upon present Sabres prospect Mikhail Grigorenko.
Enjoy.
Monday, December 17, 2012
Ottawa Attorney, Eric Macramalla, keeps it simple for us laymen
It's the NHL lockout 2012, which is a head-scratcher to begin with. The NHL had seven solid years of growth for the league and it's players after the last one in 2004/05 and, it would seem, that the two sides needed to tweak--however severely--hockey related revenue as well as other issues.
It's the complex numbers--past, current and future-- in the negotiations which feature the NHL and NHLPA being represented by legal big-dogs Gary Bettman and Donald Fehr respectively.
It's the morass that is now headed to courtroom featuring not only the legalities and precedents of legal filings, but the multitude of little things like the attorneys and judges and location that could sway a case, or a portion of the case, one way or another.
Thankfully, for those of us who get lost looking over something as simple as a parking ticket, Ottawa attorney Eric Macramalla, TSN Legal Analyst, is keeping it in perspective for us "Average Joes."
Macramalla started helping sift through legal jargon as the word "decertification" was beginning to make its way into the lockout vernacular. He began is work on TSN (as well as an appearance on WGR) with a piece breaking down the difference between decertification and disclaimer of interest (the latter be the avenue the players are now voting on,) and proceeded with his November 26 piece, A primer on NHLPA decertification.
And as the legal maneuvering is primed to get more complicated with each legal filing, Macramalla does it again with his latest piece, The NHL's lawsuit and what's next.
From the NHLPA Executive Board planning a disclaimer of interest vote by the players to the "pre-emptive" strike by the NHL in its dual filings, Marcramalla provides some answers--simply stated--as to the why's and potential ramifications of any move by either side. He also touches upon the recent NFL and NBA lockouts citing similarities and differences.
He offers no conclusions, stating "the only certainty is uncertainty," but does help us understand where we came from, where we're at and possible directions the lockout could head--including the possibility that the legal punches thrown by both sides could lead to more bargaining and an agreement.
It's a great read, and Macramalla's work is greatly appreciated by "Average Joe's" like us.
It's the complex numbers--past, current and future-- in the negotiations which feature the NHL and NHLPA being represented by legal big-dogs Gary Bettman and Donald Fehr respectively.
It's the morass that is now headed to courtroom featuring not only the legalities and precedents of legal filings, but the multitude of little things like the attorneys and judges and location that could sway a case, or a portion of the case, one way or another.
Thankfully, for those of us who get lost looking over something as simple as a parking ticket, Ottawa attorney Eric Macramalla, TSN Legal Analyst, is keeping it in perspective for us "Average Joes."
Macramalla started helping sift through legal jargon as the word "decertification" was beginning to make its way into the lockout vernacular. He began is work on TSN (as well as an appearance on WGR) with a piece breaking down the difference between decertification and disclaimer of interest (the latter be the avenue the players are now voting on,) and proceeded with his November 26 piece, A primer on NHLPA decertification.
And as the legal maneuvering is primed to get more complicated with each legal filing, Macramalla does it again with his latest piece, The NHL's lawsuit and what's next.
From the NHLPA Executive Board planning a disclaimer of interest vote by the players to the "pre-emptive" strike by the NHL in its dual filings, Marcramalla provides some answers--simply stated--as to the why's and potential ramifications of any move by either side. He also touches upon the recent NFL and NBA lockouts citing similarities and differences.
He offers no conclusions, stating "the only certainty is uncertainty," but does help us understand where we came from, where we're at and possible directions the lockout could head--including the possibility that the legal punches thrown by both sides could lead to more bargaining and an agreement.
It's a great read, and Macramalla's work is greatly appreciated by "Average Joe's" like us.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
The lockout is headed to court
Late Thrusday night the NHLPA Executive Board approved putting a Disclaimer of Interest to a vote by its full membership. An approval would mean would mean that the union would walk away from the players it represents thus dissolving the union.
The move would then be followed by anti-trust suits by individual players against the NHL.
The NHL, swiftly filed papers in New York Friday morning asking a federal court to deem the NHL lockout legal while simultaneously filing an "unfair labor practice" charge against the NHLPA with the National Labor Relations Board saying the tactic is merely a way "to extract more favourable terms and conditions of employment."
If you thought the negotiations were getting complicated, being overwhelmed by legalities and legal precedents represents utter insanity.
It's here that we'll just pass it on to the legal "experts" and rely on trusted journalists for direction.
CBC's Elliotte Friedman steps up to the plate here, Explaining the NHL's latest move.
First off, everybody pretty much knows the NHL launched a "pre-emptive" strike against the NHLPA. In addition to the legal aspects, there's also the state where the papers were filed. It's believed that New York State, according to Friedman and others, is more 'pro-employer.'
Getting into the nuts and bolts of the matter, somewhat, Friedman points out that the NHL, unlike the NBA who also was faced with decertification, plans on using "quotes and tweets" from players to back there claim that union dissolution is nothing more than a negotiating tactic.
Unfortunately for Sabres fans, outspoken goalie Ryan Miller is being used as an example. The league, according to Friedman, pulled this from a Globe and Mail article dated Nov. 22: "Decertification becomes part of the script," Miller was quoted as saying..."[and] is a push back and should show we want a negotiation and a fair deal on at least some of our terms."'
Friedman delves into other areas such as the gamble--on both sides--decertification poses and also makes other parallels between the NHL lockout and the NBA lockout--both sides being represented by the same legal counsel that represented the NBA and the NBAPA.
The NHL jumped pretty fast to get this into the courts because of the NHLPA Executive Committee decision to put decertification to a vote. One would think that NHLPA Executive Director Donald Fehr and his charges knew this was coming, as Friedman states, "It shouldn't be a surprise the players sent a trial balloon before jumping in with two feet, because they are trying to determine if an actual attempt to do it will result in a cancellation of the season."
This could actually be somewhat fun.
Based upon the Heckyl and Jeckyl theatrics of Thursday, December 6, when Fehr sent Gary Bettman and Bill Daly into a fit of rage, this could be even better.
Of course they could all get together and finalize the deal.
But that would be too simple and maybe not as much fun for those of us who find dark humor entertaining.
The move would then be followed by anti-trust suits by individual players against the NHL.
The NHL, swiftly filed papers in New York Friday morning asking a federal court to deem the NHL lockout legal while simultaneously filing an "unfair labor practice" charge against the NHLPA with the National Labor Relations Board saying the tactic is merely a way "to extract more favourable terms and conditions of employment."
"The Union has threatened to pursue this course not because it is defunct or otherwise incapable of representing NHL players for purposes of collective bargaining, nor because NHL players are dissatisfied with the representation they have been provided by the NHLPA," read the NHL complaint.
"The NHLPA's threatened decertification or disclaimer is nothing more than an impermissable negotiating tactic, which the Union incorrectly believes would enable it to commence an antitrust challenge to the NHL's lockout."
If you thought the negotiations were getting complicated, being overwhelmed by legalities and legal precedents represents utter insanity.
It's here that we'll just pass it on to the legal "experts" and rely on trusted journalists for direction.
CBC's Elliotte Friedman steps up to the plate here, Explaining the NHL's latest move.
First off, everybody pretty much knows the NHL launched a "pre-emptive" strike against the NHLPA. In addition to the legal aspects, there's also the state where the papers were filed. It's believed that New York State, according to Friedman and others, is more 'pro-employer.'
Getting into the nuts and bolts of the matter, somewhat, Friedman points out that the NHL, unlike the NBA who also was faced with decertification, plans on using "quotes and tweets" from players to back there claim that union dissolution is nothing more than a negotiating tactic.
Unfortunately for Sabres fans, outspoken goalie Ryan Miller is being used as an example. The league, according to Friedman, pulled this from a Globe and Mail article dated Nov. 22: "Decertification becomes part of the script," Miller was quoted as saying..."[and] is a push back and should show we want a negotiation and a fair deal on at least some of our terms."'
Friedman delves into other areas such as the gamble--on both sides--decertification poses and also makes other parallels between the NHL lockout and the NBA lockout--both sides being represented by the same legal counsel that represented the NBA and the NBAPA.
The NHL jumped pretty fast to get this into the courts because of the NHLPA Executive Committee decision to put decertification to a vote. One would think that NHLPA Executive Director Donald Fehr and his charges knew this was coming, as Friedman states, "It shouldn't be a surprise the players sent a trial balloon before jumping in with two feet, because they are trying to determine if an actual attempt to do it will result in a cancellation of the season."
This could actually be somewhat fun.
Based upon the Heckyl and Jeckyl theatrics of Thursday, December 6, when Fehr sent Gary Bettman and Bill Daly into a fit of rage, this could be even better.
Of course they could all get together and finalize the deal.
But that would be too simple and maybe not as much fun for those of us who find dark humor entertaining.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Obama to NHL and NHLPA, "do right by your fans."
President Obama was in Minneapolis, MN discussing "the fiscal cliff" last night with CBS affiliate WCCO. (for full transcript of the interview, click here)
Minnesota is a big-time hockey state, so in closing Frank Vascellaro asked if the President would intervene in the lockout.
Obama says that the owners and players should settle it themselves then voices an opinion that many fans have: "you guys make a lot of money and you make a lot of money on the backs of fans, so do right by your fans. You can figure out how to spread out a bunch of revenue that you’re bringing in, but do right by the people who support you."
In response to his helping out, the President said he should not need to jump in on a battle that he says is between "really wealthy players and even wealthier owners. They should be able to settle this themselves. And remember who it is that’s putting all that money in their pockets."
Exactly.
*************
In other news, via Puckdaddy:
Mark Cuban said that the NHL "didn't fix the problems [during the last lockout] and they should have."
NY Times writer Jeff Z. Klein says that the league today "is in many ways as troubled as it was before the previous lockout," and points out that three teams--the Toronto Maple Leafs, NY Rangers and Montreal Canadians--are responsible for 80% of the NHL's revenues. Which is a staggering number.
He taps into the thoughts of Tony Knopp, CEO of Spotlight TMS, a company that manages corporate tickets sales who says that, 'Clearly, its business model is dysfunctional."
But what's really hurting the league are, in the words of Drew Dorweiler, "wounded animal" franchises.
Dorweiler, is managing partner of a business evaluation firm in Montreal--Dartmouth Partners. Klein quotes him as saying that, “Missing so many games shows that for some of these teams, it’s better when they’re not playing, because then they’re not losing money. In a nutshell, it’s because there’s a structural nonviability of certain franchises in their current locations.”
Obviously Canadian-centric, but certainly worth noting based upon numbers alone.
But there are other ramifications of this lockout--the third one in 20 years.
Minnesota is a big-time hockey state, so in closing Frank Vascellaro asked if the President would intervene in the lockout.
Obama says that the owners and players should settle it themselves then voices an opinion that many fans have: "you guys make a lot of money and you make a lot of money on the backs of fans, so do right by your fans. You can figure out how to spread out a bunch of revenue that you’re bringing in, but do right by the people who support you."
In response to his helping out, the President said he should not need to jump in on a battle that he says is between "really wealthy players and even wealthier owners. They should be able to settle this themselves. And remember who it is that’s putting all that money in their pockets."
Exactly.
*************
In other news, via Puckdaddy:
Mark Cuban said that the NHL "didn't fix the problems [during the last lockout] and they should have."
NY Times writer Jeff Z. Klein says that the league today "is in many ways as troubled as it was before the previous lockout," and points out that three teams--the Toronto Maple Leafs, NY Rangers and Montreal Canadians--are responsible for 80% of the NHL's revenues. Which is a staggering number.
He taps into the thoughts of Tony Knopp, CEO of Spotlight TMS, a company that manages corporate tickets sales who says that, 'Clearly, its business model is dysfunctional."
But what's really hurting the league are, in the words of Drew Dorweiler, "wounded animal" franchises.
Dorweiler, is managing partner of a business evaluation firm in Montreal--Dartmouth Partners. Klein quotes him as saying that, “Missing so many games shows that for some of these teams, it’s better when they’re not playing, because then they’re not losing money. In a nutshell, it’s because there’s a structural nonviability of certain franchises in their current locations.”
Obviously Canadian-centric, but certainly worth noting based upon numbers alone.
But there are other ramifications of this lockout--the third one in 20 years.
“To many people, this has become a pattern, an M.O.,” said Brian Cooper, the president of the Toronto sports management company S &E Sponsorship Group “It’s almost as if consumers and sponsors are getting the message, ‘Enjoy the next six or seven years, because you know we’re going to be out the year after that.”
The only solution is labor peace, says player agent Jay Grossman. “Though the routes that baseball and football have taken to labor peace have been vastly different, both realize that labor peace equates to record growth in revenue and franchise values leaguewide,” he said. “The notion that an unconditional attack on players in three consecutive lockouts will enable growth for every N.H.L. club misses the mark.”
This particular edition of Puckdaddy's Puck headlines really touches on a lot, from the above mentioned piece, to Henrik Lundqvist and Shea Weber, to Donald Fehr, to a piece about how the ECHL and AHL have upticks in attendance that are not necessarily due entirely to the NHL lockout. (where are all the fans who'd watch anyone instead of the "pampered, greedy NHL players?)
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Mark Cuban: "[the NHL] didn't fix the problems last time...
and they should have."
So spoketh the Dallas Mavericks owner, Dallas Stars season ticket holder and Pittsburgh Penguins fan.
Really?
I thought that the NHL, when they steamrolled the NHLPA in 2004, fixed the problems with their plan--a hard cap, and an immediate 24% salary rollback, amongst other things.
The players were getting too much of the pie. Right?
So they sliced the players take from approximately 71% down to 57%.
Their plan was to bring "cost-certainty" to the league by linking salaries to revenues. Right?
So they instituted a salary cap to put every team on a level playing field.
And things seemed to be working out...for about a year and a half.
That's how long it took for league revenues to start jumping and for the big-dog owners and their GM's to start developing their individual plans to circumvent the cap.
The Philadelphia's and NY Rangers' of the league started getting creative with stashing away contracts in the AHL. Soon thereafter, teams got more creative with front-loaded contracts spread out over double-digit, or near double-digit years. Then, if that wasn't enough, came the circumvention of the throttled circumvention--signing bonuses that kept the year-over-year variance within league guidelines.
Former Sabres owner Tom Golisano, being the shrewd businessman he was, knew where this was headed and as soon as late 2006 was rumored to be looking for a buyer then. A small market like Buffalo could not compete with the big dogs without cost certainty.
Golisano, much to his credit, and with great thanks from Sabres fans all over, held on to the team until he found the proper buyer--Terry Pegula. But during that time, he placed a simple edict upon the shoulders of his COO, Dan DiPofi--"at least break even." (he made a profit only one year--2006)
The "at least break even" edict kept the team within it's own salary cap, that was beneath the league's. And they failed to make the playoffs two out of the next three years.
Even though the team was in the red, a close eye was kept on the parameters of revenue sharing--another part of the last CBA--so that the team would be very close to "breaking even."
Let's post how the league actually fixed the problems between lockouts.
Michael Ozanian of Forbes, stated in a November 29, 2004 piece entitled, Ice Capades, "The 30 teams in the NHL lost a combined $96 million (before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) on revenue of $2.2 billion during the 2003-04 season, with 17 teams posting a loss. The prior season the NHL lost $123 million on revenue of $2.1 billion."
Eight years later, Forbes released it's annual report again. The 30 NHL teams were collectively in the black to the tune of $250M on revenue of $3.3B. (click here for link to Forbes article via a previous blog)
The breakdown had 13 teams losing $130M before profit sharing while the rest of the teams made $380M. The top three teams--Toronto Maple Leafs- ($81.9M,) NY Rangers (74M,) and Montreal Canadians (51.6M)--made a combined $207M.
The league's turnaround represented nearly $350M in the seasons between lockouts.
How's that not fixed?
Mr. Cuban explained, "When you have all your southern franchises basically sucking wind, there's a message there that you have to fix it. I mean, you have two different worlds; the north and the south. It's kind of like the civil war right now going on, and it's got to be fixed."
So, because there are teams struggling in southern markets like, say, Phoenix, due to Bettman's overzealous expansion plan that reached deep into these "non-traditional hockey markets," it's up to the players to prop them up? By grabbing more of their share?
Yes, they want the players to do it. To the tune of a 50/50 split.
And the players are OK with that.
Based upon $3.3B in revenue a 7% drop in players salaries equates to $231M. If everything stays the same, the league will end up nearly doubling their 2011/12 cumulative operating income.
But that's not enough.
I guess in order to further fix the problem, they want the players to help keep "drunken-sailor" GM's in check by limiting the contracts to five years and not allowing for a year to year variance of more than 5%. This is to help keep the weaker franchises on a level playing field.
Because the salary cap wasn't enough. Nor was the salary rollback (in 2004.) Nor is the 7% grab the league now has in it's pocket.
Not only did they dictate how much the players share would be, they also want to dictate how the players divvy up thier share in the name of "a level playing field."
Really?
Thanx, Mark.
No matter how asinine ownership can be. No matter how faulty Commish Gary Bettman's grand expansion plan was. And no matter how much money the top franchises will hoard and keep from their "have-not brethren franchises" it's the players that need to bail out NHL stupidity and greed.
*shakes head*
BTW, from that 2004 Forbes piece. They estimated the average worth of an NHL franchise to be $130M.
Today, based upon Forbes' most recent estimates, the average worth of an NHL franchise is $282M.
The lowest estimated value for any NHL franchise is St. Louis which Forbes estimates to be worth $130M, the same amount as the average franchise before the last lockout.
FYI, Tom Golisano bought the Sabres in 2003 for $92M and sold it in 2011 for $189M.
So spoketh the Dallas Mavericks owner, Dallas Stars season ticket holder and Pittsburgh Penguins fan.
Really?
I thought that the NHL, when they steamrolled the NHLPA in 2004, fixed the problems with their plan--a hard cap, and an immediate 24% salary rollback, amongst other things.
The players were getting too much of the pie. Right?
So they sliced the players take from approximately 71% down to 57%.
Their plan was to bring "cost-certainty" to the league by linking salaries to revenues. Right?
So they instituted a salary cap to put every team on a level playing field.
And things seemed to be working out...for about a year and a half.
That's how long it took for league revenues to start jumping and for the big-dog owners and their GM's to start developing their individual plans to circumvent the cap.
The Philadelphia's and NY Rangers' of the league started getting creative with stashing away contracts in the AHL. Soon thereafter, teams got more creative with front-loaded contracts spread out over double-digit, or near double-digit years. Then, if that wasn't enough, came the circumvention of the throttled circumvention--signing bonuses that kept the year-over-year variance within league guidelines.
Former Sabres owner Tom Golisano, being the shrewd businessman he was, knew where this was headed and as soon as late 2006 was rumored to be looking for a buyer then. A small market like Buffalo could not compete with the big dogs without cost certainty.
Golisano, much to his credit, and with great thanks from Sabres fans all over, held on to the team until he found the proper buyer--Terry Pegula. But during that time, he placed a simple edict upon the shoulders of his COO, Dan DiPofi--"at least break even." (he made a profit only one year--2006)
The "at least break even" edict kept the team within it's own salary cap, that was beneath the league's. And they failed to make the playoffs two out of the next three years.
Even though the team was in the red, a close eye was kept on the parameters of revenue sharing--another part of the last CBA--so that the team would be very close to "breaking even."
Let's post how the league actually fixed the problems between lockouts.
Michael Ozanian of Forbes, stated in a November 29, 2004 piece entitled, Ice Capades, "The 30 teams in the NHL lost a combined $96 million (before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) on revenue of $2.2 billion during the 2003-04 season, with 17 teams posting a loss. The prior season the NHL lost $123 million on revenue of $2.1 billion."
Eight years later, Forbes released it's annual report again. The 30 NHL teams were collectively in the black to the tune of $250M on revenue of $3.3B. (click here for link to Forbes article via a previous blog)
The breakdown had 13 teams losing $130M before profit sharing while the rest of the teams made $380M. The top three teams--Toronto Maple Leafs- ($81.9M,) NY Rangers (74M,) and Montreal Canadians (51.6M)--made a combined $207M.
The league's turnaround represented nearly $350M in the seasons between lockouts.
How's that not fixed?
Mr. Cuban explained, "When you have all your southern franchises basically sucking wind, there's a message there that you have to fix it. I mean, you have two different worlds; the north and the south. It's kind of like the civil war right now going on, and it's got to be fixed."
So, because there are teams struggling in southern markets like, say, Phoenix, due to Bettman's overzealous expansion plan that reached deep into these "non-traditional hockey markets," it's up to the players to prop them up? By grabbing more of their share?
Yes, they want the players to do it. To the tune of a 50/50 split.
And the players are OK with that.
Based upon $3.3B in revenue a 7% drop in players salaries equates to $231M. If everything stays the same, the league will end up nearly doubling their 2011/12 cumulative operating income.
But that's not enough.
I guess in order to further fix the problem, they want the players to help keep "drunken-sailor" GM's in check by limiting the contracts to five years and not allowing for a year to year variance of more than 5%. This is to help keep the weaker franchises on a level playing field.
Because the salary cap wasn't enough. Nor was the salary rollback (in 2004.) Nor is the 7% grab the league now has in it's pocket.
Not only did they dictate how much the players share would be, they also want to dictate how the players divvy up thier share in the name of "a level playing field."
Really?
Thanx, Mark.
No matter how asinine ownership can be. No matter how faulty Commish Gary Bettman's grand expansion plan was. And no matter how much money the top franchises will hoard and keep from their "have-not brethren franchises" it's the players that need to bail out NHL stupidity and greed.
*shakes head*
BTW, from that 2004 Forbes piece. They estimated the average worth of an NHL franchise to be $130M.
Today, based upon Forbes' most recent estimates, the average worth of an NHL franchise is $282M.
The lowest estimated value for any NHL franchise is St. Louis which Forbes estimates to be worth $130M, the same amount as the average franchise before the last lockout.
FYI, Tom Golisano bought the Sabres in 2003 for $92M and sold it in 2011 for $189M.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)