Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

A Failed Plan

from David Shoalts of the Globe and Mail,

The opposition of the NHL owners to the players’ request of increased revenue sharing as a solution to the league’s economic woes is puzzling.

By their own admission, the owners need each other to have a healthy league – they are so stubborn about keeping the Phoenix Coyotes from moving, they have paid the team’s bills for three years – but they seem to have no interest in creating a system that would insure the NHL gets healthy and stays that way.

Ownership’s insistence that taking money from the players is only the way to fix money problems in anywhere from 12 to 15 cities makes no sense when you consider how these guys built the current league.

At one time, the owners thought 30 teams was the best thing for the NHL.

continued

Filed in: NHL Teams, NHL Talk, NHLPA, | KK Hockey | Permalink
 

Comments

Avatar

With a CBA issue, so many times it’s easy to just say, ‘a pox on both their houses.’  But this article summarizes quite well why I have no sympathy for the owners.  At all.  The revenue is there overall, but the split is so unequal that some teams (the majority, most likely), can’t break even.  And unlike, say, baseball, there’s even a mechanism in place (salary cap with a floor) to make sure shared revenues would be spent instead of being shoved into a miserly owner’s pocket.  And the fact that owners refuse to split their revenues in a more equitable way—why is that a problem the players must solve?

So maybe this is over-simplifying a bit—but not much—to say this is about owners who want to maximize their own profits and to hell with the other owners.  With no acknowledgment that these teams are more like separate divisions of a large corporation (who need each other to succeed overall) as opposed to competing businesses.

 

Posted by Lex Talionis on 10/10/12 at 09:24 AM ET

henrymalredo's avatar

These weak markets exist essentially because the NHL does what it always does, gives teams to ownership groups that will pay them the most in frnachise fees or relocation fees or are connected to someone powerful in the NHL, without any regard for the strength of the ownership or market.  And since we’re really only about 20 years out from the Wirtz - Eagleson - Ziegler years, the NHL still has that mindset.

Posted by henrymalredo from Lansing on 10/10/12 at 09:33 AM ET

Avatar

Here’s the primary problem with Shoalts’ position: It’s factually wrong.  The NHL has, in fact, proposed raising the amount of money they contributed to revenue sharing.

The NHL’s August proposal, per USAToday, was a phase in from 57-43 to 50-50 over a 6 year term and offered to take RS up to between 190 and 200 million.  The NHLPA wanted 240 million.

So what we’re really talking about here as far as RS goes is, assuming 8 teams qualify for it, a difference between the NHL and NHLPA of at most a smidge over 6 mil per qualifying team.

40-50 million bucks in total.

It is pretty hard to look at the offers actually being exchanged and then blame everything on the owners.  It is very easy to read a piece from Shoalts that is EXTREMELY lean on actual facts and then blame everything on the owners.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/10/12 at 10:25 AM ET

Evilpens's avatar

It is pretty hard to look at the offers actually being exchanged and then blame everything on the owners.  It is very easy to read a piece from Shoalts that is EXTREMELY lean on actual facts and then blame everything on the owners.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/10/12 at 10:25 AM ET

Libetrla Sports Media Is in solidarity with Their “Union Brothers” hahah What a Joke

Posted by Evilpens on 10/10/12 at 10:29 AM ET

Evilpens's avatar

Liberal DAMN IT!

Posted by Evilpens on 10/10/12 at 10:29 AM ET

Avatar

I wouldn’t say Liberal or Conservative plays too much into this.  Mostly it’s just competent journalism vs. incompetent journalism… or writers who are biased towards the players because that’s the group they have to interact with as opposed to owners, who they will rarely ever see, talk to, interview or have an informed discussion with.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/10/12 at 10:35 AM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

The new NHL plan also calls for new hockey-related revenue definitions, and a phased-in approach to generating financial relief for some teams.

Well Mr. “Lean on facts” you completely forgot about this tidbit to that “50-50” split.  That’s after redifing 100 as being significantly less than it is right now to give “breaks” on what goes into the pot for financially weaker teams.  E.I. they still wanted to take it out of the players share, and then drop the players share another 7% on the already shrunken total.

Talk about lean on facts, you’ll cherry pick anything to disagree with someone or to be “right”

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 10/10/12 at 10:39 AM ET

Avatar

I am trying to decide if it is a liberal or conservative positon to want to have free market pricing in the local market, but socialized costs in a monopolized national market? Then I can make up my mind which bias we are discussing.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 10/10/12 at 11:21 AM ET

Evilpens's avatar

I wouldn’t say Liberal or Conservative plays too much into this.  Mostly it’s just competent journalism vs. incompetent journalism… or writers who are biased towards the players because that’s the group they have to interact with as opposed to owners, who they will rarely ever see, talk to, interview or have an informed discussion with.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/10/12 at 10:35 AM ET

That is true too

I know here in America the Sports media is Further Left than The News Media Which has been Ballwashing Obama for 5 years now

Posted by Evilpens on 10/10/12 at 11:44 AM ET

Avatar

Well Mr. “Lean on facts” you completely forgot about this tidbit to that “50-50” split. 

Why do you think I forgot it, exactly?

Here is the statement I was referring to:

“The opposition of the NHL owners to the players’ request of increased revenue sharing as a solution to the league’s economic woes is puzzling.”

And I referred to it by pointing out:

“Here’s the primary problem with Shoalts’ position: It’s factually wrong.  The NHL has, in fact, proposed raising the amount of money they contributed to revenue sharing.

The NHL’s August proposal, per USAToday, was a phase in from 57-43 to 50-50 over a 6 year term and offered to take RS up to between 190 and 200 million.  The NHLPA wanted 240 million.”

Are there going to be other changes to the CBA?  Well, obviously.  The initial point from Shoalts was not that ‘without changing anything else the Owners are refusing to up RS’.  It was what I’ve quoted above.  Did you see any kind of nuance in Shoalts’ statement?  If you did, would you share it?

IMO, Shoalts’ statement regarding the owners refusal to up RS when they’ve already in fact proposed upping RS share is factually wrong on it’s face.

That the proposal which included said increase in RS also included any number of other changes is immaterial to the substance of my point.

Which was, specifically, that Shoalts was talking out of his ass on this one.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/10/12 at 02:17 PM ET

Avatar

Talk about lean on facts, you’ll cherry pick anything to disagree with someone or to be “right”

Ah.  Forgot about this.

Hey, if it bugs you that much, there are options available to not have to read my posts anymore.  So go do that.

Otherwise you’ll just have to suffer in a world where other people believe words actually mean things, and that make cogent, rational arguments when they disagree with the substance of an expressed opinion.

So make another masturbation joke and check that off your list for the day. wink

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/10/12 at 02:20 PM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

The NHL’s August proposal, per USAToday, was a phase in from 57-43 to 50-50 over a 6 year term and offered to take RS up to between 190 and 200 million.  The NHLPA wanted 240 million.

Yes, technically you’re right, which was the point of me making my post, because you like to cherry pick facts and divert the arguement to an arena where you make assumptions that “make” you right.

“Here’s the primary problem with Shoalts’ position: It’s factually wrong.  The NHL has, in fact, proposed raising the amount of money they contributed to revenue sharing.

Here’s my primary problem with your opinion.  You’re saying it’s perfectly reasonable for the owners to increase revenue sharing, taking it directly out of the players pocket.  And that Shoalts MUST be wrong because since they made an offer increasing revenue sharing after taking it from the players, because they were.. making a “serious” attempt at offering a deal where each side gives a little for the good of everyone?

So yes, playing Bettmany word games, technically he’s wrong.. but being perceptive you can see the point he was making.

Pulling out facts out of context to show how one particular phrasing is wrong is a little.. childish and really what makes most politics unstomachable today.  Very manly of you.

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 10/10/12 at 03:13 PM ET

Avatar

Yes, technically you’re right, which was the point of me making my post, because you like to cherry pick facts and divert the arguement to an arena where you make assumptions that “make” you right.

This appears to be a case of you rushing out to try and correct me and then realizing in mid leap you’ve misjudged the situation.

Splat.

I’m not ‘technically’ right.  I’m completely right.  The point of my comment is clearly to correct Shoalts’ factually untrue assertion that the NHL has refused to increase the RS pot.

Unless the USAToday story is a complete fabrication, I’ve done so.

All that we have left is some random silliness while you try and fling some ad hominem harumphadumphs at me because you’re chafing over something or other.

Here’s my primary problem with your opinion.  You’re saying it’s perfectly reasonable for the owners to increase revenue sharing, taking it directly out of the players pocket.

You are JJ’ing.  Rather than explain to you why you are wildly misrepresenting my position I will simply ask a question: what statement have I made which led you to that interpretation?  Actually quote the statement, please.

What you’ll find when you attempt to do that and fail is that I’ve made no comments regarding the rightness or wrongness of the NHL’s attempt to increase RS at the expense of players share.

All I said is that the NHL has actually addressed increasing RS, in direct contradiction of Shoalts’ claim to the contrary.

That’s it.  I have no idea why you think there is some 4th dimension meaning behind anything I’ve said.

Pulling out facts out of context to show how one particular phrasing is wrong is a little.. childish and really what makes most politics unstomachable today.  Very manly of you.

Bah.  99% this is you having some kind of grudge you felt like stroking and then getting out ahead of yourself.  Nothing was taken out of context, nothing was esoteric or in any way unclear.

Shoalts said “The opposition of the NHL owners to the players’ request of increased revenue sharing as a solution to the league’s economic woes is puzzling.”

I pointed out the NHL has already submitted a plan to raise RS.

You’ve elected to not try to explain how you deduced some greater nuance from Shoalts’ comment than what he wrote.

C’est la vie.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/10/12 at 04:48 PM ET

Avatar

All parties have lots of money.  Players and owners.  There are owners that are better off than other owners and players that are better off than other players.

There are so many variables that it does not translate neatly into X vs. B.  There needs to be leadership from both sides that sits down and seeks common ground. 

At this point it’s more a game of gotcha with one side seeking total victory or at least refusing to seek the common denominator.

The mistake they are making is comparing themselves to the NFL or NBA.  They are far from that status as a league.  In order to get there they are going to have to make compromises and above all avoid play stoppages that remove them from the sports consciousness.

Posted by 13 user names on 10/10/12 at 06:14 PM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

You’re like the Bettman of the comments section.

It’s like arguing with a kid, I hate people that play semantics games, hard to get to the core issues or have “rational” dialouge. 

Realized mid-jump?  No, I thought I pointed out the little PC word game you were playing.  It’s sad that you believe that this is HOW you should argue your points.  You’re not a politician, that bullshit doesn’t fly over here.  However, talking with you, you can NEVER get past that tick of yours and it’s frustrating because you seem like you like hockey.  I mean I never see you actually post about the game or a game or players but you love to argue the “politics” of it, so who knows.  I’ve managed to find common ground with just about everyone here since no group of people completely agree on everything.  But even where we disagree we acknowledge the perspective of the other person.  As long as I can remember you posting, you have a habit of TELLING people where they come from or their perspective and I guess I’ve let that shit get at me cause everyone here is pretty decent mostly and all you contribute is stirring the pot.

I honestly couldn’t even begin to tell you who I thought your team was.

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 10/10/12 at 06:23 PM ET

Avatar

Realized mid-jump?  No, I thought I pointed out the little PC word game you were playing.  It’s sad that you believe that this is HOW you should argue your points.

I said that Shoalts’ position that the NHL has refused to increase RS was wrong.  I demonstrated how it was wrong.

Where you’re screwing up here is in your attempt to add implication and nuance to Shoalts’ initial statement which aren’t there and then somehow blame me for not adding it as well.

I mean, if Shoalts had come out and said the NHL wouldn’t increase RS without leaving player share as is, or if he made some kind of larger case about the NHL not taking money from the players side, or any of a million other arguments… that would have been one thing.

But that’s not what he did.  He said “The opposition of the NHL owners to the players’ request of increased revenue sharing as a solution to the league’s economic woes is puzzling.”

I said “The NHL’s August proposal, per USAToday, was a phase in from 57-43 to 50-50 over a 6 year term and offered to take RS up to between 190 and 200 million.  The NHLPA wanted 240 million.”

I mean I never see you actually post about the game or a game or players

Newsflash, HO, there aren’t any games with any players right now.  It’s kind of stupid to talk about games and players when neither exist at the moment.  If you’re trying to say that prior to the present I don’t post about games or players, then you know as little about my posting history here as you do about my positions currently.

As long as I can remember you posting, you have a habit of TELLING people where they come from or their perspective and I guess I’ve let that shit get at me cause everyone here is pretty decent mostly and all you contribute is stirring the pot.

You’ve just spent this whole thread trying to call me out on a series of things that never actually happened with accusations you’re literally pulling out of thin air and you’re going to try and say that I’m just ‘stirring the pot’?

Good grief.  Really?

I honestly couldn’t even begin to tell you who I thought your team was.

If this thread is any indication I’m pretty sure that’s not going to stop you from ripping on me for supporting the wrong one.

 

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/11/12 at 08:03 AM ET

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com

 

image

image