I have never supported the players in a professional sports labor dispute. And I’m not about to start doing so with the current NHL lockout.
I have read numerous stories about the greedy owners and how they are asking the players to take a pay cut while the league is supposedly growing its revenues by leaps and bounds. Conveniently omitted from most of those stores are two things; the fact that the players’ salaries have nearly doubled since the last lockout and that according to Forbes Magazine, only five NHL teams made a profit last year (defined as positive earnings before interest, taxes, and depreciation).
Somehow the players keep forgetting to mention this when they act the aggrieved party.
I have tremendous respect for players like Sidney Crosby and Jonathan Toews. They are two of the best players, best leaders, and best ambassadors of and for the National Hockey League. And they are extremely well compensated for this. Crosby just signed a deal that will pay him an annual average salary of $8.7 Million for the next dozen years (on an accelerated pay schedule). Toews currently is working at $6.2 Million per over five years with a huge raise certain to come on his next deal. And every dollar of those contracts is fully guaranteed whether or not they perform to expectations.
In the meantime their employers, arguably the two most successful U.S. based teams in the National Hockey League both failed to make a profit last year; in spite of having three home playoff games each.
Toews is one of several players who has been highly critical of the owners for wanting the players to take a 10 to 12% cut from a wage pool that has nearly doubled since 2005 (based on the mid-point of the minimum and maximum cap). That’s when the NHL rolled out a $39 Million salary cap. A mere eight years later, the MINIMUM cap is now $54 Million (the max is over $70 Million), which means the players have gotten more than their fair of the NHL’s growth.
Sorry if I don’t buy Captain Serious' contention that the owners are killing hockey just to prove they are in charge.
I have no problem with players being paid as long as the league can afford to pay them. I define “afford” as follows; the teams in the league can be reasonably profitable and the league maintains competitive balance. Once that stops, I have issue. To me a league where 25 of 30 teams are not profitable is one that cannot “afford” its current wage structure.
And that’s before we consider that NHL revenues are disproportionately driven by ticket revenue. It bothers me as a die-hard fan that I have to pay $75 for a decent seat at the new energy barn so that the Penguins can generate a manageable net operating loss.
Let’s be clear on something, the NHL is not asking its players to work for minimum wage. The current league average salary is about $2.5 Million annually on FULLY GUARANTEED CONTRACTS. Under a realistic concession plan where the players get 50% of hockey related revenue, the same plan the NFL and NBA players agreed to; the league average would be around $2.2 Million and the highest paid players would still be near $10 Million.
I’m guessing that Shea Webber can still pay his mortgage on that.
I am tired beyond belief of hearing about the concessions the players made in the last lockout. Those concessions were necessary for the NHL to be financially viable. Does anybody really think the owners would have cancelled an entire season if they were not for the most part in dire financial straits? Put it this way, did you ever believe for one second the NFL lockout would last in to the season when that league is minting money? They pushed as hard as they could for a better CBA and then got it done before any football, and any revenue was missed.
Owners cancel seasons when it’s more costly for them to play than not to play. And apparently many of the owners feel they are in the same position now. Why they have to threaten to cancel another seasons before millionaire players get that message across is beyond me.
The players should not be complaining about give backs. They should be on their hands and knees thanking the good lord in heaven that they get paid an average of $2.5 Million per year, in a sport that struggles for acceptance in most U.S. markets. If Chicago and Pittsburgh cannot make a profit selling out a hundred plus games in a row, what do you think is happening in New Jersey, Colorado, Dallas, Tampa, and San Jose? There are at least 10 NHL cities (if not more), where the local team is barely noticed and that’s not going to change any time soon.
The salary cap was necessary to create financial stability and cost certainty for the NHL. Now the cap needs to be adjusted to a figure that allows teams to at least break even during the regular season. There is nothing wrong with that. For my money (which is exponentially less than Crosby’s or Toews’), the players need to get on board with this reality.
I am not saying the owners are blameless here; they are not. I’m on record in this blog as taking them to task for their ridiculous cap circumventing contracts that gained popularity over the last four years. It amazes me that these folks canceled an entire season to get cost certainty and then went out of their way to circumvent the rules in place. I also have issue with them signing guys to big money contracts days before the lockout started. Little or no such activity went on in 2004. I will also concede that their initial proposal to the union was off the deep end and that they cannot expect total victory this time around.
And yes, to some degree the owners need protection from themselves. How is that different than passing rules to protect the players from themselves? Critics say the owners should not overspend even though the minimum cap figure basically forces them to. Well Raffi Torres should not elbow players in the head and potentially ruin their careers. He does so anyway.
Sometimes limits are needed for the greater good.
According to Forbes, three of the five profitable teams, Montreal, Toronto, and NY Rangers generated almost all of the league’s overall profit last year. Those three teams and a few others drive the revenue figures that dictate the cap. The rest of the league cannot keep up with that growth. And it’s not a feasible solution to have Toronto subsidize 20 teams so that Scott Gomez can earn $7 Million annually to score 9 goals.
On top of which, high revenue teams like Philadelphia go on predatory (literally) spending sprees to steal players from small market teams. The goon squad throws some insane contract at Shea Webber in the hope that Nashville cannot financially match it. The Preds then have two choices; match a contract they cannot afford or have their two best players walk away in the same offseason. Good luck selling hockey in Nashville if that happens.
I do not want the NHL turning in to Major League Baseball. And the NHL’s financial model is every bit as untenable at 57% of hockey related revenue as it was before the cap.
There is a popular misconception that the players’ union is stronger now than it was in during the last lockout. The union was every bit as obstinate in 2004 and Bob Goodenow was every bit the Don Fehr clone. The owners ultimately prevailed not because the NHLPA was weak but because after one year of not playing hockey, the players finally got the message; that playing hockey under a $39 Million cap was infinitely better than doing just about anything else. Even after the owners spent a year proving their financial convictions, Goodenow was still screaming at the players not to give in. Does that make any sense to you? Does the union seem like it has the league’s best interest at heart?
It’s not about the strength of the union; it’s about how long it takes the players to face reality. In 2004 it took an entire season. Here’s hoping it takes considerably less time in 2012.
I have read numerous stories about the greedy owners and how they are asking the players to take a pay cut while the league is supposedly growing its revenues by leaps and bounds. Conveniently omitted from most of those stores are two things; the fact that the players’ salaries have nearly doubled since the last lockout and that according to Forbes Magazine, only five NHL teams made a profit last year (defined as positive earnings before interest, taxes, and depreciation).
Somehow the players keep forgetting to mention this when they act the aggrieved party.
I have tremendous respect for players like Sidney Crosby and Jonathan Toews. They are two of the best players, best leaders, and best ambassadors of and for the National Hockey League. And they are extremely well compensated for this. Crosby just signed a deal that will pay him an annual average salary of $8.7 Million for the next dozen years (on an accelerated pay schedule). Toews currently is working at $6.2 Million per over five years with a huge raise certain to come on his next deal. And every dollar of those contracts is fully guaranteed whether or not they perform to expectations.
In the meantime their employers, arguably the two most successful U.S. based teams in the National Hockey League both failed to make a profit last year; in spite of having three home playoff games each.
Toews is one of several players who has been highly critical of the owners for wanting the players to take a 10 to 12% cut from a wage pool that has nearly doubled since 2005 (based on the mid-point of the minimum and maximum cap). That’s when the NHL rolled out a $39 Million salary cap. A mere eight years later, the MINIMUM cap is now $54 Million (the max is over $70 Million), which means the players have gotten more than their fair of the NHL’s growth.
Sorry if I don’t buy Captain Serious' contention that the owners are killing hockey just to prove they are in charge.
I have no problem with players being paid as long as the league can afford to pay them. I define “afford” as follows; the teams in the league can be reasonably profitable and the league maintains competitive balance. Once that stops, I have issue. To me a league where 25 of 30 teams are not profitable is one that cannot “afford” its current wage structure.
And that’s before we consider that NHL revenues are disproportionately driven by ticket revenue. It bothers me as a die-hard fan that I have to pay $75 for a decent seat at the new energy barn so that the Penguins can generate a manageable net operating loss.
Let’s be clear on something, the NHL is not asking its players to work for minimum wage. The current league average salary is about $2.5 Million annually on FULLY GUARANTEED CONTRACTS. Under a realistic concession plan where the players get 50% of hockey related revenue, the same plan the NFL and NBA players agreed to; the league average would be around $2.2 Million and the highest paid players would still be near $10 Million.
I’m guessing that Shea Webber can still pay his mortgage on that.
I am tired beyond belief of hearing about the concessions the players made in the last lockout. Those concessions were necessary for the NHL to be financially viable. Does anybody really think the owners would have cancelled an entire season if they were not for the most part in dire financial straits? Put it this way, did you ever believe for one second the NFL lockout would last in to the season when that league is minting money? They pushed as hard as they could for a better CBA and then got it done before any football, and any revenue was missed.
Owners cancel seasons when it’s more costly for them to play than not to play. And apparently many of the owners feel they are in the same position now. Why they have to threaten to cancel another seasons before millionaire players get that message across is beyond me.
The players should not be complaining about give backs. They should be on their hands and knees thanking the good lord in heaven that they get paid an average of $2.5 Million per year, in a sport that struggles for acceptance in most U.S. markets. If Chicago and Pittsburgh cannot make a profit selling out a hundred plus games in a row, what do you think is happening in New Jersey, Colorado, Dallas, Tampa, and San Jose? There are at least 10 NHL cities (if not more), where the local team is barely noticed and that’s not going to change any time soon.
The salary cap was necessary to create financial stability and cost certainty for the NHL. Now the cap needs to be adjusted to a figure that allows teams to at least break even during the regular season. There is nothing wrong with that. For my money (which is exponentially less than Crosby’s or Toews’), the players need to get on board with this reality.
I am not saying the owners are blameless here; they are not. I’m on record in this blog as taking them to task for their ridiculous cap circumventing contracts that gained popularity over the last four years. It amazes me that these folks canceled an entire season to get cost certainty and then went out of their way to circumvent the rules in place. I also have issue with them signing guys to big money contracts days before the lockout started. Little or no such activity went on in 2004. I will also concede that their initial proposal to the union was off the deep end and that they cannot expect total victory this time around.
And yes, to some degree the owners need protection from themselves. How is that different than passing rules to protect the players from themselves? Critics say the owners should not overspend even though the minimum cap figure basically forces them to. Well Raffi Torres should not elbow players in the head and potentially ruin their careers. He does so anyway.
Sometimes limits are needed for the greater good.
According to Forbes, three of the five profitable teams, Montreal, Toronto, and NY Rangers generated almost all of the league’s overall profit last year. Those three teams and a few others drive the revenue figures that dictate the cap. The rest of the league cannot keep up with that growth. And it’s not a feasible solution to have Toronto subsidize 20 teams so that Scott Gomez can earn $7 Million annually to score 9 goals.
On top of which, high revenue teams like Philadelphia go on predatory (literally) spending sprees to steal players from small market teams. The goon squad throws some insane contract at Shea Webber in the hope that Nashville cannot financially match it. The Preds then have two choices; match a contract they cannot afford or have their two best players walk away in the same offseason. Good luck selling hockey in Nashville if that happens.
I do not want the NHL turning in to Major League Baseball. And the NHL’s financial model is every bit as untenable at 57% of hockey related revenue as it was before the cap.
There is a popular misconception that the players’ union is stronger now than it was in during the last lockout. The union was every bit as obstinate in 2004 and Bob Goodenow was every bit the Don Fehr clone. The owners ultimately prevailed not because the NHLPA was weak but because after one year of not playing hockey, the players finally got the message; that playing hockey under a $39 Million cap was infinitely better than doing just about anything else. Even after the owners spent a year proving their financial convictions, Goodenow was still screaming at the players not to give in. Does that make any sense to you? Does the union seem like it has the league’s best interest at heart?
It’s not about the strength of the union; it’s about how long it takes the players to face reality. In 2004 it took an entire season. Here’s hoping it takes considerably less time in 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment