Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

Evening Line

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

Comments

Avatar

i have been a loyal PA supporter the whole time but it’s time for the players to fold at this point on contract issue. do it for the good of the game.

Posted by FlyersFan on 11/14/12 at 09:58 PM ET

calquake's avatar

I have been a loyal NHL supporter (50 years) the whole time but it’s time for the owners to fold at this point on contract issue.  Do it for the good of the game.

Posted by calquake on 11/15/12 at 12:43 AM ET

Avatar

i have been a loyal PA supporter the whole time but it’s time for the players to fold at this point on contract issue. do it for the good of the game.

Since everyone knew that Bettman would not fold, why did the players delay and avoid for so long? What was achieved by holding out until now, only to fold? Either you have a winning hand or you don’t. If you were bluffing, then shame on you for the damage already done to the game.

Posted by timbits on 11/15/12 at 02:18 AM ET

Avatar

Since everyone knew that Bettman would not fold, why did the players delay and avoid for so long?

That’s the most interesting thing at play here, IMO.  Either Fehr is telling his guys that he has Bettman on the ropes or is encouraging them to stand strong (which would be awful advice but I suppose it’s possible), or there are enough players who are so stupid that they think holding out is going to accomplish much for them.

Every dollar the PA gives up in their contracts by not playing now is a dollar they aren’t ever going to get back.  Under any circumstances.  In any deal.

I have been a loyal NHL supporter (50 years) the whole time but it’s time for the owners to fold at this point on contract issue.  Do it for the good of the game.

They can’t, though.  They can’t sustain those losses indefinitely.  In terms of profit margins we’re talking about the owners collectively being in the mid to lower single digits while the players are in the high 70’s, and that’s only because there are three or four owners who are raking it in.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/15/12 at 05:28 AM ET

Red Winger's avatar

The players are just digging their own graves now.

It has become very apparent this is like no other lockout / strike in pro sports history. This is not about settling a few contractual issues, or even looking for a bit more of the revenue pie: this is about a wholesale change of the world’s premiere hockey league; not adjustment or changes, but a complete redo.

There are enough NHL owners (not all, but enough influential ones) who are willing to let the league implode and start over in two or three years. They feel the current situation is that untenable, rightly or wrongly. 

Settle now and you will get the lesser of two evils. Wait a year or two, and the players won’t even recognize the league.

By 2014, the deal offered in November of 2012 will look like a veritable treasure chest for the players.

It sucks, there are no winners. I’m not saying the owners are right, but I am saying this is their toy, not the players, and enough owners are willing to take their toy and go home. And when they do come back, you can bet EVERYTHING will be on their terms.

Billionaires can out-wait millionaires. The players rely on the income the NHL provides to make a living, the owners do not…not by a long-shot. There are very simple economics at play here.

Fehr and the NHLPA, leave your egos at the door and settle. If not, 1/4 to 1/3 of the current players will not be around for the start of the ‘New and Improved’ NHL in October of 2014. Or 2015, if need be.

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste Marie on 11/15/12 at 09:37 AM ET

Avatar

why do we as fans care to take sides?  Both are beyond wealthly, and being incredibly frustrating.

Posted by gretzky_to_lemieux on 11/15/12 at 09:47 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

What does “beyond wealthy” have to do with it?

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/15/12 at 10:11 AM ET

Red Winger's avatar

What does “beyond wealthy” have to do with it?

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/15/12 at 09:11 AM ET

A lot.

There are two sets of people here:

Set 1: the NHL provides for your livelihood; it makes the payments and helps you provide for your family.

Set 2: The NHL is but one of multiple business ventures. If you were to lose your team or sell it you would still be very comfortable and be more than able to provide for your family.

Beyond wealthy has much less to lose should the NHL disappear.

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste Marie on 11/15/12 at 10:16 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Yeah, g_to_l categorized both sides as “beyond wealthy” as though that was part of what strengthened an argument to not take sides here.

That’s what I was questioning.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/15/12 at 10:20 AM ET

Avatar

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste Marie on 11/15/12 at 09:16 AM ET

I’m pretty sure JJ was responding to the point GtL made that both sides are “beyond wealthy”...

Posted by Garth on 11/15/12 at 10:28 AM ET

Avatar

this is about a wholesale change of the world’s premiere hockey league; not adjustment or changes, but a complete redo.

Are we still talking about this, the last or the next lockout? It never changes, with each agreement that fixes the league in new and improved ways, management figures out a way to circumvent the deal and then try to re-invent the wheel on the next go round blaming everyone but, themselves.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 11/15/12 at 10:37 AM ET

redxblack's avatar

The players should hold strong. The league is much more interested in damaging the players’ role in bargaining than they are in playing the sport. This is not about dollars and cents, and it never was. This is about who controls the right to their labor. The league is using a pretext of failing teams to demand further concessions, yet failing teams that could move to profitable markets are left in place because the NHL can’t admit it made a mistake too often.

Most of the best players in the world are temporarily hitched in other leagues for now. The dollars they are losing now will be permanent as soon as they scab over and fold. If the NHL succeeds in such takeaways, how premier will the NHL remain when the KHL can offer much more to the world’s top talent?

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 11/15/12 at 11:55 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

If the players are interested in what’s “for the good of the game”, then what they should be doing is demanding arbitration, not simply settling for demands.

I think that push happens after the next batch of games gets canceled. If we get into the long-haul negotiation tactics where the NHL is actually considering using replacement players to end a lockout, the legal battle that’s going to take place is going to be a bunch of he-said, he-said nonsense over how hard each side tried to come to an agreement.

If the PA wants to go into that battle with a leg to stand on (where the NFLPA tried to do so without it), then they have to show that they tried the federal mediation step.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/15/12 at 12:47 PM ET

Joe Z.'s avatar

The NLPA already gave up 7% of their share. In their position I would be forcing a concession from the other side too. That means: Improving the contracting rights for the players. If that happens we would have a fair deal. With no concessions from one side a deal simply can’t be fair.

Posted by Joe Z. from Austria on 11/15/12 at 12:48 PM ET

Avatar

Yeah, g_to_l categorized both sides as “beyond wealthy” as though that was part of what strengthened an argument to not take sides here.

That’s what I was questioning.

As a group, the players are super rich.  They aren’t in the 1%, they’re in the .001%.

As a group, the owners are super rich.  They aren’t in the 1%, they’re in the .000001%.

For either side to cry financial hardship in the face of those two lines above is an insult to normal people.

To be fair, I don’t think that is what either side actually thinks.  I’m pretty sure the players for the most part know they are super rich and the owners know they are super-duper rich.  They do tend to play the financial hardship card in public a bit though.

If the PA wants to go into that battle with a leg to stand on (where the NFLPA tried to do so without it), then they have to show that they tried the federal mediation step.

If that happens we would have a fair deal. With no concessions from one side a deal simply can’t be fair.

Why is it that ‘fairness’ is a function of what happened before?  IMO the last deal was put together by idiots and it ended up being decidedly ‘unfair’.  Using an unfair deal as the starting point from which fairness is judged doesn’t strike me as the firmest of foundations.

Further, as far as I am aware the NHLPA has not agreed to give up one single real dollar in ‘concessions’.  In every proposal they want their 1.8ish B rate of cash guaranteed indefinitely, with the ‘concession’ being that if someday revenues catch up they’ll agree to take a smaller ‘share’ of future revenues just not a smaller actual amount of future revenues.

And, oh yeah, they want all of the other pro-player portions of the CBA to remain, too.

It’s a little odd that on the one hand players (and their supporters here) would blame the owners for not controlling their own spending but then rail against the owners for daring to propose structural changes that would… help control owners spending.

As though how the owners controlled or did not control their spending has any impact at all on what players as a group receive of HRR.

There are some pretty obvious things the NHLPA could be doing within the current construct to secure a large amount of freedom of movement for players even within a system where eligibility ages are shifted back 12 whole months.

IMO, the smart play is to roll over on the NHL’s structural suggestions but then try and bite back on the RFA offer sheet compensation levels and amounts.  Move overall eligibility back a year (and it hits pretty early IMO), but make eligible RFAs a little more free to slide between teams that are willing to spend money.  Index the salary cap levels to slide with the cap.

Simple stuff like that.

Right now the NHLPA doesn’t want to give up a dime of real money, they want the rest of the CBA as is, and they’re apparently willing to force the NHL to use replacement players in order to find out that they won’t get either.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/15/12 at 03:05 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

For either side to cry financial hardship in the face of those two lines above is an insult to normal people.

We’re not talking about a side crying financial hardship here, we’re talking about a basic assumption that both of these groups have more money than we do and that is the only consideration that needs to be made before a judgment of “eff ‘em all” needs to be made… as though once a level of compensation is reached, what is and isn’t “fair” is no longer important.

Using an unfair deal as the starting point from which fairness is judged doesn’t strike me as the firmest of foundations.

The last deal was unfair to a small group of owners and was fair to everybody else.

if someday revenues catch up

This isn’t a question of “if”. It’s a question of when, and the “when” that the players have been using in their last proposal, based on a dour number upon which the NHL has been happy to agree has been “year 3”.  In the meantime, the players’ proposal has been to increase the fairness for the clubs who actually needed it.

Simple stuff like that.

There is nothing that makes an RFA “free to slide between teams”. That’s exactly what the R in that term prevents. An RFA player is wholly dependent upon a GM from another team finding the willingness to give up compensation while also finding creative ways to leverage a team’s financials against itself AND trying not to come out of it with a reputational problem.

With a system that uses the cap and ties player compensation to HRR, there is nothing about the RFA system which can be tweaked to give players more freedom of movement because players can still only move one of two ways:

1: convince a GM that he’s worth way more than the market says he’s worth to the point where his current team would rather have the compensation than the player at the salary he’s been offered.

2: Hold out on his current team until he can force a trade to a team where he actually does want to sign… and in the process become despised.

The entire remainder of the proposed financial system seeks to make the first option that much harder because it’s designed to ease the financial strain on teams which otherwise may be financially trapped into allowing an overpaid player to walk.

In reality, the total of the financial and contractual changes are designed solely to prevent perennial lottery-winners from becoming dynastic in the off chance that all of their recent high draft picks develop into superstardom all at the same time. This is the only time when those RFAs are going to find ways of being “free to slide” amongst teams because it’s really the only time another team will have the kind of leverage where the drafting team simply cannot match an offer due to salary cap constraints.

... which is nearly ironically hilarious when you consider that a burgeoning dynasty is exactly what may make a group of exciting RFAs actually want to stay together, so their “freedom” to choose in that situation turns into the perfect owner-friendly conundrum of whether the player wants to take the money he’s worth on the limited-play market or whether he’s willing to take less than his market value out of loyalty to his brethren.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/15/12 at 03:49 PM ET

Red Winger's avatar

With no concessions from one side a deal simply can’t be fair.

Posted by Joe Z. from Austria on 11/15/12 at 11:48 AM ET

Oh, my, this hasn’t been about fairness for quite a while now.

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste Marie on 11/15/12 at 04:08 PM ET

Avatar

We’re not talking about a side crying financial hardship here, we’re talking about a basic assumption that both of these groups have more money than we do and that is the only consideration that needs to be made before a judgment of “eff ‘em all” needs to be made… as though once a level of compensation is reached, what is and isn’t “fair” is no longer important.

Oh, I think if you go back and read some of the early vents by posters here you’ll find many more people lining up and identifying with the players instead of the owners because the owners are rich(er) and hey, they should just have to take less money because of that.  IIRC there was a thread in which I mentioned that a whole bunch of teams made less money than 6-10 of the players on the roster, to which most of the responses were something along the lines of ‘too bad, the owners should own teams because they love hockey not because they want to make any money.’

The last deal was unfair to a small group of owners and was fair to everybody else.

Enh.  I think the 15ish teams that lost money hand over fist during the last CBA might disagree with that assessment of yours.  There’s no question the last CBA made some teams (among them Detroit) humongous amounts of cash.  Pretty much only the high-revenue teams, though.

This isn’t a question of “if”. It’s a question of when,

Depends.  There are those who think this lockout will kill the NHL.  If they are right, or even kinda sorta right, ‘if’ becomes a relevant part of the discussion.  IMO revenue in the next full season will approximate what it was in the last full season and grow the way it usually does: through price increases and .5-1% fan growth each year.

Still, you never know for sure.  If attendance drops 10-15% in year one and it ends up taking a decade for the NHL to get back to where they were in 2012 revenue-wise…?

There is nothing that makes an RFA “free to slide between teams”.

This is a great moment to remind you what JJing means.

Your ‘quote’ of what I said:  ““free to slide between teams”.
What I actually said : “make eligible RFAs a little more free to slide between teams”.

I bolded the difference, which seems a bit relevant since you then spent three paragraphs snarkily arguing against a point I didn’t make.  Technically your quote was ‘accurate’, in that you at least didn’t outright change any of the words.  Pretty slimy to leave out the part that obvious impacts the nature and tone of the comment, though.

I mean, obviously what I was saying was that making RFA compensation levels indexed to the cap (which theoretically will raise them over time) would increase the amount RFAs could make, and that relaxing the RFA compensation amounts (which would make teams more willing to tender offer sheets) would increase the frequency with which those larger RFA sheets would be offered.

We’re not talking about anything world-shattering here, are we?  Certainly not something so momentously novel you’d feel such a need to hacktastically misquote me about it.

Save those special shenanigans of yours for something bigger, JJ. wink

In reality, the total of the financial and contractual changes are designed solely to prevent perennial lottery-winners from becoming dynastic in the off chance that all of their recent high draft picks develop into superstardom all at the same time.

Enh, I don’t know about that.  I don’t think moving back RFA/UFA eligibility a year, which IIRC is all the NHL’s offer really does, changes too much of anything.

Heck, since it gives teams an ‘extra’ year to look at players we might see teams less hesitant to bring guys up since their RFA clock was shorter in the old CBA, meaning they’d be making an NHL wage as opposed to an AHL wage sooner.  Maybe a team like Detroit wouldn’t be so averse to bringing up a 20 year old when they knew they could have him till 26 instead of the old CBA where if they brought him up at 20 he’ either have to start earning his keep right away or there would be a possibility he wouldn’t get into the top half of the roster until the year before he went UFA.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/15/12 at 04:16 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Oh, I think if you go back and read some of the early vents by posters here you’ll find many more people lining up and identifying with the players instead of the owners because the owners are rich(er)

Not disputing any of this, simply saying it’s not what G_to_L’s statement was about.

Enh.  I think the 15ish teams that lost money hand over fist during the last CBA might disagree with that assessment of yours.

I think the 15is teams that are supposing to have lost money hand-over-fist during the last CBA are welcome to prove my assessment wrong by opening their books.

Depends.  There are those who think this lockout will kill the NHL.  If they are right, or even kinda sorta right, ‘if’ becomes a relevant part of the discussion.

I’m not denying the possibility, I’m ignoring the likeliness.

I bolded the difference, which seems a bit relevant since you then spent three paragraphs snarkily arguing against a point I didn’t make.

You said that players could find a way to increase their movement while RFA, right? I could re-post those three paragraphs if you’d like to re-read them without the assumptive butthurt.

I mean, obviously what I was saying was that making RFA compensation levels indexed to the cap (which theoretically will raise them over time) would increase the amount RFAs could make, and that relaxing the RFA compensation amounts (which would make teams more willing to tender offer sheets) would increase the frequency with which those larger RFA sheets would be offered.

RFA Compensation levels meaning the required raise that has to be present on a qualifying offer? Yeah… no it will not increase the amount RFAs could make. You might accidentally increase the amount of unworthy RFAs receive qualifying offers and therefore increase the amount of UFAs created, but any of those extra UFAs would not end up with those raises; they’d likely end up making less.

Relaxing the compensation amounts doesn’t change the fact that reasonable offers will always be matched and the player has no control over that.  In fact, if you decrease the value of not matching a reasonable offer (by making the compensation less), then you increase the motivation for a team to match an offer and retain the player.

How again is that supposed to wiggle any extra freedom to slide for players? 

Because we move the margin for players between worth keeping the rights to and letting them go on to become UFA journeymen at 23 years of age?  No.

Enh, I don’t know about that.  I don’t think moving back RFA/UFA eligibility a year, which IIRC is all the NHL’s offer really does, changes too much of anything.

Yeah, what’s 100 games worth of a player’s chances to end his career trying to earn the right to claim his full market value? Practically nothing.

Maybe a team like Detroit wouldn’t be so averse to bringing up a 20 year old when they knew they could have him till 26 instead of the old CBA where if they brought him up at 20 he’ either have to start earning his keep right away or there would be a possibility he wouldn’t get into the top half of the roster until the year before he went UFA.

I thought you told me you’d read the CBA?

If Detroit brought up a 20-year old under the old CBA, they’d have him until 27 (RFA status until age 27 or 7 years of accrued service reached… whichever happened first).  Why would a 20 year old under the old system have to start earning his keep right away or there would be a possibility he wouldn’t get into the top half of the roster until the year before he went UFA in such a way as to make that any more worth mentioning than the possibility of a player to finally earn his way into the lineup one year before age 28 UFA status?

So weird you’d randomly pick a 20-year old, since that is the age at which bringing him up maximizes the time a guy can spend in the NHL before reaching unrestricted free agency, regardless of whether you’re talking about the old system or the new.

But yeah, that might totally be the reason Detroit calls up 22 and 23-year olds. Nothing to do with waiver eligibility… all about RFA vs. UFA.

 

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/15/12 at 04:50 PM ET

Avatar

I think the 15is teams that are supposing to have lost money hand-over-fist during the last CBA are welcome to prove my assessment wrong by opening their books.

I forgot.  You have a position that’s not proven, but you’re going to assume it’s true because it hasn’t been actively disproven, and you’ve set up a standard for ‘disproof’ that’s wildly higher than the one you used to establish your position in the first place.

You said that players could find a way to increase their movement while RFA, right?

I said changing some of the RFA rules would make movement more likely as well as making RFA status more ‘profitable’, at least for the best RFAs.

I could re-post those three paragraphs if you’d like to re-read them without the assumptive butthurt.

I didn’t think you were ‘butthurt’, JJ.  I just thought you were pretty conveniently fast and lose with how you chose to ‘quote’ me, and then gleeful with the way you rushed off to yammer and screech about how silly the thing you pretended I said was.

I mean, that’s not the first or even tenth time you’ve run that particular play, right?

RFA Compensation levels meaning the required raise that has to be present on a qualifying offer? Yeah… no it will not increase the amount RFAs could make.

Sigh.  I really didn’t think this was that difficult a concept to grasp.  Okay, I’ll take it in steps.

According to the old CBA, these are the old RFA compensation guidelines:

“$1,110,249 or below: None
Over $1,110,249 to $1,682,194: Third-round choice
Over $1,682,194 to $3,364,391: Second-round choice
Over $3,364,391 to $5,046,585: First-round and third-round choice
Over $5,046,585 to $6,728,781: First-round, second-round and third-round choice
Over $6,728,781 to $8,410,976: Two first-round choices, one second- and one third-round choice
Over $8,410,976: Four first-round choices”

My two-fold point was that 1) If you attach the dollar amount that determine the striations in required compensation directly to a cap number that will ostensibly grow each year you can positively impact the average RFA compensation.  2) If you reduce the required compensation at each of the previously mentioned levels, you increase the likelihood of receiving an offer sheet which would be made against those growing numbers.

When you combine those two likelihoods you can have a fairly noticeable positive impact on overall RFA compensation, most specifically among the upper-tier of RFAs.

Yeah, what’s 100 games worth of a player’s chances to end his career trying to earn the right to claim his full market value? Practically nothing.

Eyeroll. 

Why would a 20 year old under the old system have to start earning his keep right away or there would be a possibility he wouldn’t get into the top half of the roster until the year before he went UFA in such a way as to make that any more worth mentioning than the possibility of a player to finally earn his way into the lineup one year before age 28 UFA status?

Like I said, it wouldn’t change very much, really.

But yeah, that might totally be the reason Detroit calls up 22 and 23-year olds. Nothing to do with waiver eligibility… all about RFA vs. UFA.

Eyeroll.

Yes.  Of course when I said “Maybe a team like Detroit wouldn’t be so averse to…” what I really meant, and which you so masterfully intuited with that finely-honed sense of tone and meaning of yours, was that the RFA and UFA issue comprised the sum total of what the Wings considered and that all other issues were tossed aside with the dismissiveness of Kate Upton at a D and D convention.

You nailed it, JJ.  You see right into my soul.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/15/12 at 08:53 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

I didn’t think you were ‘butthurt’, JJ.  I just thought you were pretty conveniently fast and lose with how you chose to ‘quote’ me, and then gleeful with the way you rushed off to yammer and screech about how silly the thing you pretended I said was.

That bad at reading, huh? I meant you were butthurt because you thought that a slight paraphrase took the following rebuttal of your dumb idea off in a different direction when in reality it didn’t. The proof is that you’ve gone to ad hominem to pedantically claim you’re being misrepresented instead of actually discussing the concept, which is that making it “more free” to slide between teams for RFAs is a bullshit concept.

Sigh.  I really didn’t think this was that difficult a concept to grasp.  Okay, I’ll take it in steps.

According to the old CBA, these are the old RFA compensation guidelines:

My apologies. I was giving you too much credit. See, when you recommended a change to the old system where draft choice compensation would index, I figured you already knew that it already indexed and weren’t dumb enough to call that a change like it’s a new thing.

I’ll try not to make the mistake of figuring you know what you’re talking about in the future. I apologize for the error. For the record: THIS is what the old CBA said in 2005:

OFFER SHEET COMPENSATION
$660,000 or below None
Over $660,000 to $1 million Third Round
Over $1 million to $2.0 million Second Round
Over $2.0 million to $3.0 million First Round and Third Round
Over $3.0 million to $4.0 million First Round, Second Round, and Third
Round
Over $4.0 million to $5.0 million Two First Rounds, Second Round, and
Third Round
Over $5 million Four First Rounds

The dollar amounts set forth in the scale outlined above shall be increased on an annual
basis at the same percentage rate of increase as Average League Salary

You see, since Average League Salary indexes with the cap, so does RFA offer sheet compensation.

So congratulations on your brilliant idea to keep that thing the same while calling it a change beneficial to the players. You must be very proud.

was that the RFA and UFA issue comprised the sum total of what the Wings considered and that all other issues were tossed aside with the dismissiveness of Kate Upton at a D and D convention.

Oh, so instead it was an attempt to change the subject and talk about something completely different mid-conversation? Get real.

I forgot.  You have a position that’s not proven, but you’re going to assume it’s true because it hasn’t been actively disproven, and you’ve set up a standard for ‘disproof’ that’s wildly higher than the one you used to establish your position in the first place.

And that’s right, you have no qualms about consistently saying half the league loses money with absolutely no proof because it hasn’t been actively disproven and you’ve set up a standard for ‘disproof’ that is wildly higher than the one you used to establish your position in the first place.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/15/12 at 09:40 PM ET

Avatar

That bad at reading, huh?

No, I don’t think you’re that bad at reading… I just think you like to try and play some silly games now and then, and rather than have a rational discussion about what is actually said you have to try and be sneaky and sly with how you ‘quote’ what has been said.

That way it’s a better set up for you to strut around and show off your snark muscles.

Responding to what was really said?  Way weaker of a set up.  Less fun.

So congratulations on your brilliant idea to keep that thing the same while calling it a change beneficial to the players.

You nailed it again, JJ.  When I suggested two changes what I really only meant was one change.  And when I suggested indexing to the cap what I meant was indexing to the average player salary.

You’re like the Mentalist.

Oh, so instead it was an attempt to change the subject and talk about something completely different mid-conversation?

I don’t think you were trying to change the subject.  I think you were trying to intentionally mischaracterize what I said about the same subject so you could then prance around while deconstructing an argument I never made.

Totally different.

And that’s right, you have no qualms about consistently saying half the league loses money with absolutely no proof

http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/

That’s pretty much all of the info I am aware of right now with regards to team profitability, JJ.  There’s some anecdotal evidence of team losses, and then there is the circumstantial evidence regarding the financial health of teams when we see how hard it is for teams to find owners at all, or financially qualified owners in particular.  You’ve elected to reject that stuff as not ‘proof’ and replace it with… well, just your opinion.  Or maybe what the NHLPA tells you.

And that’s fine.  Obviously everyone is more than able to set whatever standards they want when they try and figure out what they think about something.

I just don’t think you’re being terribly consistent.

Now, if at some point down the road there’s some information out there which contradicts what’s already been floated I’m always willing to reconsider a position.

What you won’t find me doing, however, is setting up pretty silly and inconsistent standards of contrary information before I’d be willing to modify my opinion.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/16/12 at 06:17 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Now, if at some point down the road there’s some information out there which contradicts what’s already been floated I’m always willing to reconsider a position.

Say, for instance, the league itself saying that the Forbes numbers aren’t accurate?

That’s right, you ignore that because it’s inconvenient.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/16/12 at 09:04 AM ET

Avatar

Say, for instance, the league itself saying that the Forbes numbers aren’t accurate?

Who said the Forbes numbers were accurate?

Again, you need to start concerning yourself more with what is actually said and less with the made up positions you try and argue with and expect other people to defend just because you are pretending they said it.

All I am saying is that the Forbes information plus the anecdotal stuff plus the circumstantial stuff plus things like the SJ owners saying they lost 15 mil last year even though they sold at 100% capacity, lends quite a bit more credence to the notion that the financial structure of the NHL is a bit wonky than what you’ve provided in support of your opinion.

Which IIRC has to date been nothing besides the PA telling you so, if that.

And again, it’s fine for you to believe in something without having any real proof of it.  I just think it’s silly of you to do that and then actually try and be snarky with other people who disagree with you but who actually do have some amount of outside corroboration to their opinion.

I don’t think what I’ve provided is by any means definitive, but I’m not such a dope that I’d require irrefutable evidence to the contrary before I’d even countenance any moderation in my position, either.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/16/12 at 09:32 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

like the SJ owners saying they lost 15 mil last year even though they sold at 100% capacity, lends quite a bit more credence to the notion

San Jose’s ownership says THE SHARKS lost money last year; they never said ownership lost money.

If you want to treat anecdotal evidence of actions supposedly giving you the information you need, then what of the Sharks consistently being a team that spends near the cap, despite these harrowing losses?

I’m sure San Jose Sports & Entertainment Enterprises is just that committed to winning hockey games.

Who said the Forbes numbers were accurate?

You do, every time you make the claim that 15 teams are losing money as though it’s factual.

What I have provided in support of my opinion is an enhancement to the Forbes number of the understanding about how multi-tiered business approaches work which are not adequately presented and which you ignore wholesale.  Your argument is predicated on the idea that if the system really worked great, there wouldn’t be a lockout. I have not argued that, but you’ve irresponsibly accelerated that to mean that the lockout is an indication that the old system was leaguewide untenable garbage while at the same time offering up the idea that the amortization period of lost revenues for teams is relatively short.

In short, the system doesn’t have to be irreparably broken in order for there to be a lockout; There are multiple reasons to continue one other than “simply could not work based off the old system” that you’ve sometimes hinted at and sometimes completely ignored or minimized because it doesn’t fit what you want to believe… which is what the NHL wants you to believe.

As always, if I’m going to believe as they’d like me to, that the system is untenably broken, then the burden of proof is on the league.  Of course when you’re unhindered by such a burden, you’re free to make wild accusations and play up rhetorical bullshit. Just because my standards are too rigorous for you doesn’t mean they aren’t the ones which should be met.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/16/12 at 10:14 AM ET

Avatar

San Jose’s ownership says THE SHARKS lost money last year; they never said ownership lost money.

If you want to treat anecdotal evidence of actions supposedly giving you the information you need, then what of the Sharks consistently being a team that spends near the cap, despite these harrowing losses?

Because some ownership groups are fine losing money on an NHL club just to field a quasi-competitive team.

My larger point here is that when a team needs to be run at a loss in order to field a quasi-competitive team, that’s a recipe for long term financial disaster.

Among the symptoms of that long term financial disaster are 1) weak ownership groups who buy into the NHL but then can’t sustain such losses over time and end up either pulling up stakes or running the team so cheaply they become a joke and 2) Consistent and constant work stoppages due to labor strife while some form of solution is found to the financial predicament of the league in question.

I think it’s pretty obvious the NHL is experiencing both 1 and 2 in fairly heavy quantities, are they not?

You do, every time you make the claim that 15 teams are losing money as though it’s factual.

Don’t be a pedant, JJ.  If you’re one of those dips that thinks every statement made in a forum has to be either appended or prepended by an ‘in my opinion’ or an ‘I think’, seriously, get a hold of yourself.  You don’t do it, it’s pretty stupid to expect everyone to do it, and it’s incredibly lame to try and dangle from such a stupid point because you’re flubbing an argument.

What I have provided in support of my opinion is an enhancement to the Forbes number of the understanding about how multi-tiered business approaches work which are not adequately presented and which you ignore wholesale.

In other words, your own opinion combined with ignorance about my opinion.

Your argument is predicated on the idea that if the system really worked great, there wouldn’t be a lockout.

No, my argument is predicated on the idea that seasons aren’t lost when things are working great.  There are always going to be moderate labor interruptions either from lockouts or strikes now and then, sometimes for good reasons and sometimes for stupid ones.

When groups of people are willing to give up seasons of money, however, that should be an indicator that there’s rather a lot that’s not working, right?

Just because my standards are too rigorous for you doesn’t mean they aren’t the ones which should be met.

Which would be fine, if your own opinion met your own standards.  Since it doesn’t, it just makes you look inconsistent and silly.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/16/12 at 11:45 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

My larger point here is that when a team needs to be run at a loss in order to field a quasi-competitive team, that’s a recipe for long term financial disaster.

Do you think San Jose Sports & Entertainment Enterprises is suffering overall? That’s my point. It’s easy to move money around to be most-financially beneficial to the parent company.

The entire concept that a lockout has to exist only when necessary begs the question of necessity and all I’m doing is asking for the people doing the locking out to actually produce tangible evidence of necessity rather than being told “well, they’re doing it, so they must need to do it.”
.

Don’t be a pedant, JJ.

Hilarious order, coming from you.

In other words, your own opinion combined with ignorance about my opinion.

Your opinion is based on willful ignorance, so thank you.

When groups of people are willing to give up seasons of money, however, that should be an indicator that there’s rather a lot that’s not working, right?

You’ve said yourself that the amortization period of the dollars lost for clubs is a short one. If any owners intend to hold the assets of their clubs for more than ten years, this becomes an easy business decision to make. Why do you ignore your own points?

Which would be fine, if your own opinion met your own standards.

You keep charging that somehow I’m making claims that I’m not in order to build against a standard. could you please find me the comments where I’ve made a factual claim about how many teams are earning or losing money?  I haven’t made one.  I think it’s significantly fewer than the Forbes numbers claim… you parrot that it’s 3…ish and then get angry every time somebody asks for evidence which enhances that stance.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/16/12 at 01:01 PM 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

image