Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

Shawn Horcoff On Gary Bettman

from Craig Custance of ESPN,

Horcoff is now a veteran of multiple lockouts. The Oilers captain has been active in the NHLPA for years and even though he's not surprised that another round of regular season games are expected to be chopped this week, it doesn’t make it any easier. 

"It’s the same thing every time with the owners. [Gary Bettman's] first defense is to cancel games and test the players. There’s been no effort to negotiate on his stance. Their negotiation is 'The players have to come down to us or we’re not moving at all,'" Horcoff told ESPN the Magazine on Monday. "Gary has forced the players' hand into this situation and frankly, he’s [ticked] us off. I think at the start, that first offer they gave out, that was a big, big mistake on Gary’s part." 

But it’s not even the cancellation of games or the stalled negotiations that appear to irk Horcoff the most. He questioned the sincerity of the league when it comes to concern for hockey fans. 

"I sit there and read Gary and Bill’s comments about, 'We feel sorry for the fans.' Well, I find that really hard to believe," Horcoff said. "I think it’s a blatant lie, personally. I don’t feel they feel sorry for the fans at all. Gary feels like no matter what, [the fans are] going to come back and couldn't care less if they're frustrated with this. He’s going to do what it takes to get the best deal and couldn't care less what they feel." 

read on

Filed in: NHL Teams, Edmonton Oilers, NHL Talk, NHLPA, | KK Hockey | Permalink
  Tags: shawn+horcoff

Comments

Evilpens's avatar

So that’s why Don Fehr & the NHLPA asked that Team themed Bars & Real estate be included in the Revenues ?

Posted by Evilpens on 10/15/12 at 05:56 PM ET

Avatar

Posted by Evilpens on 10/15/12 at 05:56 PM ET

What does that have to do with anything?

Posted by Garth on 10/15/12 at 06:52 PM ET

Avatar

So that’s why Don Fehr & the NHLPA asked that Team themed Bars & Real estate be included in the Revenues ?

Posted by Evilpens on 10/15/12 at 05:56 PM ET

I know what he is talking about. Evilpens is talking about how Owners don’t include commercial property in NHL HRR. For example, Ed Snider and comcast aka comcast spectacor owns the flyers and at same time run a theme restaurant and bar called “xfinity live” and that isn’t add to nhl’s total HRR.

Evilpens, you can’t add Team themed Brs & commerical real estate because the property is run under an different entity inwhich a differnt party is getting the profis. In case with the Xfinity Live, all the profits would go to Comcast Spectacor, a 50/50 split btw comcast and ed snider.


BTW,Shawn Horcoff is right.

 

Posted by FlyersFan on 10/15/12 at 09:14 PM ET

Avatar

I’ve heard of the PA talking about theme restaurants etc, I’m just mystified as to what it has to do with what Horcoff was talking about.

Evikpens’ constant “Me am think union are ungood” is getting up there with HockeyinHD’s “CBA>SPC” in terms of pointless comments being spouted just for the sake of spouting some sort of comment.

Posted by Garth on 10/15/12 at 10:30 PM ET

Avatar

PA has brought up the theme restaurants because the teams running them have the $$ to do it because they are owned by companies like comcast. they are looking for extra $$$. It’s a smoke screen issue that have zero impact on cba.

Posted by FlyersFan on 10/15/12 at 11:34 PM ET

Avatar

Horcoff is not right.  The initial offer was a flat 43%.  The latest offer was a 6 year term that stepped the player share down to 50% over the course of 4 years.  IIRC it went 55, 53, 49 then 50.  Something like that anyway.

That’s called ‘movement’.

Conversely, I would like someone to explain for me how far the NHLPA has moved off it’s initial position of retaining every smidgeon of their 57% of HRR.  At some point I would hope one of the make-believe ‘journalists’ that alleges to cover the NHL would cast about for an answer to that question instead of gasbagging it up like Custance, or MacKenzie, or Frei, et al.

Yes, the NHL is engaging in a “lockout” because they didn’t like the old terms of the CBA and want better ones.  This is true, and entirely a function of ‘greed’ insofar as it is nearly 100% a monetary concern.

However, it is also true that the players have refused every contract the NHL has offered because they really like the old CBA and want it to go on forever.  That also is true, and also entirely a function of ‘greed’ insofar as it is nearly 100% a monetary concern.

Evikpens’ constant “Me am think union are ungood” is getting up there with HockeyinHD’s “CBA>SPC” in terms of pointless comments being spouted just for the sake of spouting some sort of comment.

I wish I could add that ‘The More You Know’ riff of notes after every time I have to repeat my “CBA >SPC” when someone gets it wrong.

CBA > SPC… da-doo-da-dahhh.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/16/12 at 04:54 AM ET

Avatar

That’s called ‘movement’.

No, that’s called spitting in the face of your counterparts and mocking the very idea of negotiation.  The first proposal was beyond insulting and showed that the league didn’t take the PA seriously and had no intentions of actually trying to bargain before deciding to lock out the players.

It was met with the reaction it should’ve been met with.

Now they’ve given what should have been their first offer should have been.  They haven’t moved, they’ve just shown the PA that they have no respect for the union or for the collective bargaining process.

SPC=contract.

Posted by Garth on 10/16/12 at 08:01 AM ET

Avatar

No, that’s called spitting in the face of your counterparts and mocking the very idea of negotiation. 

No, it’s called negotiations.  The players started at 57%.  The owners started at 43%.  Both starting points are equidistant from 50%.  Neither is particularly more inflammatory than the other.

Now they’ve given what should have been their first offer should have been.  They haven’t moved, they’ve just shown the PA that they have no respect for the union or for the collective bargaining process.

That’s pretty tortured logic.

SPC=contract.

CBA =  Bigger, more important contract.

Da-doo-da-daaaaah.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/16/12 at 08:09 AM ET

Avatar

I have a question:  Would you SPC-ists be comfortable with a league that honored the SPCs but did not have a CBA?

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/16/12 at 08:11 AM ET

Avatar

The players started at 57%.  The owners started at 43%.  Both starting points are equidistant from 50%.

So if you have $100 and I ask for $50 of your dollars I have made a fair offer because I am splitting your money in half? I would love to have you negotiating for the other side. See the owners did not start at 43%, the owners started at the same 57% percent as the players, because that is where the last deal ended.  You can pretend that the old CBA didn’t exist, but they are not negotiating in a vacuum. The players intial offer then should have been 64% which would make the split from 43% exactly in the middle to be 57%. Since there is no CBA in place, that now makes it look like both sides are negotiating to the “middle”.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 10/16/12 at 09:36 AM ET

Avatar

I have a question:  Would you SPC-ists be comfortable with a league that honored the SPCs but did not have a CBA?

Yes. I am not opposed to an at large work force. I also don’t like an artificial cap that allows some owners unlimited profit and forces untenable losses on others. If I recall correctly, the NHLPA is not technically a traditional union either, but an Association and why SPCs even exist. Those that complain the NHLPA are taking jobs away from Europeans don’t seem to understand this. I come from a “union household” and unions were always taking jobs from people that were not in the union, so this brotherhood of workers nonsense always makes me cringe.  Would the owners in all markets agree to a league were only SPCs exist, players went to the highest bidder, no ELC framework , players could hold out and there was no NHL draft?

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 10/16/12 at 10:29 AM ET

Avatar

So if you have $100 and I ask for $50 of your dollars I have made a fair offer because I am splitting your money in half?

If we share a 100 bucks but there are three other pairs who also share 100 bucks and tend to split their hundred bucks pretty close to 50-50, I don’t think it’s a crime against nature to suggest we split our money up in roughly the same way the other three pairs split their money up.

See the owners did not start at 43%, the owners started at the same 57% percent as the players, because that is where the last deal ended.

Here’s the problem with that approach: Contracts don’t work that way.  Just because someone made x before, the day that contract expires what they used to make is completely meaningless to everybody but, most likely, that single person.

Just because a player used to make 6 mil a year, when that deal expires there is nothing written in stone, sand or chalk which implies he should make 6 mil a year again.

Same deal here.  Just because the players used to receive 57% doesn’t mean they’ve earned 57% of the pot in the future.  Just like the owners aren’t guaranteed to receive 43% of the next pot.  Heck, it took a 24% salary rollback just to get the players to ‘only’ 54% of HRR, which escalated to 57% under the terms of the old deal.

You can pretend that the old CBA didn’t exist, but they are not negotiating in a vacuum.

I agree.  The problem I see here is that by limiting the discussion to just the history of the NHL’s CBA a bit of oxygen removal is being attempted as well.

I completely agree that the historical rate of compensation is a relevant point of interest with regards to the NHL and NHLPA’s positions.  I don’t think it’s particularly binding, but it’s a historical data point so it at least deserves notice.

The thing that is getting very, very little play among the group of people who style themselves as journalists who cover the NHL, however, is how dissimilar the NHL’s revenue split is compared to other major leagues, and dissimilar very very strongly in the players favor.

For instance:

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/print?id=38502

“What percentage of revenue do players in the other major pro leagues get?

The NBA saw their percentage of revenue drop from 57 percent under their old deal to 51.2 percent for the 2011-12 season. That number will continue to drop to 49 percent as the deal progresses.

MLB players, who are not limited by a salary cap, took home roughly 45 percent of team revenue in 2010. As of 2011, MLB players received 51 percent of baseball revenue.

NFL players received as high as 54 percent of revenue under their old CBA, but will see that number drop to approximately 47 percent under their new deal (give or take a percentage point depending on whom you ask), though the NFLPA has said the players got 55 percent of league revenue in 2011.”

NFL players get ~47%.
NBA players get ~49%
MLB players get ~51%

And NHL players got 57% in their last deal, 74% (!!!!!!!) in the one before that… and people are supposed to think it’s the OWNERS who are being greedy and grasping?

Yes, both sides are fighting over money.  There is greed on both sides.  People need to start looking at the whole picture here though.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/16/12 at 10:31 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

There you go using 57% in a comparison where it is not the same as the other leagues’ numbers because the NHL defines revenues in a unique way.

I’m as tired of bringing this up as you must be of saying CBA>SPC, except that I’m actually right.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/16/12 at 10:45 AM ET

Avatar

There you go using 57% in a comparison where it is not the same as the other leagues’ numbers because the NHL defines revenues in a unique way.

Every league defines revenue in a manner different in some degrees in some areas to what the others do, JJ.  The NHL will most likely determine ‘revenues’ in the context of what you are saying now differently than how they did in CBA’s past.

Unless you have some kind of substantive insight into whether these distinctions actually result in more or less money being withheld, I don’t quite see what point you are attempting to make.  I mean, it certainly seems plausible to suggest that the NHL’s definition of revenue is actually more inclusive than those of other sports… which would make the 57% the players currently receive an even greater outlier compared to other leagues.

My point is this:  Under agreed-upon definitions of ‘revenues’, the NHL has gotten a far greater share of them historically than other leagues have and will moving forward.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/16/12 at 10:51 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Every league defines revenue in a manner different in some degrees in some areas to what the others do, JJ.

So the numbers are probably not comparable, but you’re comfortable using them as such because on their face, it looks like they make a good point for what you’re trying to say.

Unless you have some kind of substantive insight into whether these distinctions actually result in more or less money being withheld, I don’t quite see what point you are attempting to make

Because you also lack the substantive insight you’re expecting of me while presenting no qualms about actually using numbers you’re admitting shouldn’t be used in a comparison to make a point that the players’ demands are out-of-synch with the rest of the sports world.

My point is this:  Under agreed-upon definitions of ‘revenues’, the NHL has gotten a far greater share of them historically than other leagues have and will moving forward.

No. These are not agreed-upon definitions of revenues. My comment and your first two paragraphs are about how these definitions of revenues are different, so who the hell is agreeing that these are actually comparable?

 

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/16/12 at 11:01 AM ET

mrfluffy's avatar

HD, are you being obtuse just to be obtuse?

Posted by mrfluffy from A wide spot on I-90 in Montana on 10/16/12 at 11:09 AM ET

Avatar

So the numbers are probably not comparable, but you’re comfortable using them as such because on their face, it looks like they make a good point for what you’re trying to say.

You appear to have a spectacularly high bar of information before you are willing to have an opinion here, JJ.  That’s a bit of a departure from what you usually say, don’t you think?

Unless you have some means of demonstrating to me that the manner in which one sport or another determines revenue is drastically, comparison-debilitatingly different from what the others do, all you are really doing is confirmation-trolling.

I mean, you really have no idea how much or how many teams are actually losing money every year, and I don’t necessarily recall you allowing that absence of confirmation to prevent you from taking off after the owners for wanting more beneficial terms in a new CBA.

Of course, it’s perfectly reasonable to prefer to wait until you have complete and total disclosure of the incontrovertible financial realities before expressing an opinion on the nature of a negotiation.  My concern is that you appear to be selectively engaging a similar preference.

In my opinion, I think it fairly unlikely that one of the professional leagues somehow withholds a significantly larger portion of gross revenue from their pot for player participation than the others do.  Girls do tend to talk, you know.

I’m not saying it’s impossible one league has managed to fly something that significant completely under the radar, I just haven’t seen anything which suggests to me such is the case.

Given that, I think a broad comparison between leagues with regards to player share is apropos, at least until further information is revealed that makes such a comparison less accurate.

HD, are you being obtuse just to be obtuse?

I don’t think you’ve latched onto the issue being discussed.  Or you’re just being silly.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/16/12 at 11:29 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Unless you have some means of demonstrating to me that the manner in which one sport or another determines revenue is drastically, comparison-debilitatingly different from what the others do, all you are really doing is confirmation-trolling.

None of the other leagues subtract direct costs from revenues. Based on what information I’ve been able to gather, that’s about a $400M difference in comparability.

In my opinion, I think it fairly unlikely that one of the professional leagues somehow withholds a significantly larger portion of gross revenue from their pot for player participation than the others do.  Girls do tend to talk, you know.

It specifically says this in the 2005 NHL CBA and can be compared to the current NFL CBA. One league deducts direct costs to create “Hockey Related Revenue” while the NFL’s CBA states they do not allow expense deductions when calculating what they call “All Revenue”. Both of these documents are readily available. In the NFL’s, you can also see the drastically different way they treat luxury boxes, suites, and premium seating (places in stadiums where people buy the rights to use no matter the event that’s taking place there at any given time).  Believe what you want.

To wrap up, you simply “believe” that all sports count revenues so similarly that you can continue to parrot that 57% of net revenues is comparable to 50% of gross revenues. I disagree with this and believe that you’re aware enough of the differences in between net and gross that what you’re doing is intentionally and irresponsibly misconstruing figures.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/16/12 at 11:50 AM ET

Avatar

I have a question:  Would you SPC-ists be comfortable with a league that honored the SPCs but did not have a CBA?

Yes.

I’d be much more comfortable with that than with someone who says “You know that contract we negotiated in good faith?  We’re not going to honour it because we don’t want to.”

My point is this:  Under agreed-upon definitions of ‘revenues’, the NHL has gotten a far greater share of them historically than other leagues have and will moving forward.

Yes, but it is a different definition of revenues than the NFL, NBA and MLB, therefore you can’t compare them.

The drinking age in Ontario is 19 and the drinking age in Michigan is 21.  Therefore if a 19 year old Michigan resident goes to Ontario and drinks, he isn’t breaking the law, and if a 20 year old Ontario resident goes to Michigan and drinks, he IS breaking the law, and the Ontario resident can’t cite Ontario laws to defend himself when breaking the law in Michigan.

It doesn’t work that way.

Unless you have some means of demonstrating to me that the manner in which one sport or another determines revenue is drastically, comparison-debilitatingly different from what the others do, all you are really doing is confirmation-trolling.

Different is different.  Apples and oranges may both be sweet, roundish fruit that grow on trees but that doesn’t mean orange juice and apple juice are the same thing.

Posted by Garth on 10/16/12 at 12:23 PM ET

Avatar

None of the other leagues subtract direct costs from revenues. Based on what information I’ve been able to gather, that’s about a $400M difference in comparability.

But there are other leagues that subtract significant portions of revenues from the pot.  I showed you what the NBA pulls out.  The NFL pulls out PSLs in a variety of cases, ‘taxes and surcharges’ in a number of other cases, etc.  ‘Stadium Renovation’ being a huge catch-all category here that touches PSLs PSRs, TV contracts, etc.

And oh by the way:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2010/12/17/how-much-is-the-nfl-earning-players-and-owners-have-different-ideas/

“What’s the difference between Total Revenues and All Revenues? As Atallah correctly defines it, “ ALL revenue refers to all the revenues generated by the NFL and its operations. “Total Revenue” is a CBA term that refers to all of the monies that are left after the owners receive an expense credit. Atallah claims that the owners have received credits in excess of $1 billion in each of the past two years.

Well spank my ass and call me Susan, eh JJ?  By gosh and by golly suddenly it’s starting to look like there may just be another league out there which backs out expenses.

Also, jump a link further ahead to read a letter written by some know-nothing dufus, but when I say ‘know nothing dufus’ I really mean Assistant Executive Director of the NFLPA George Atallah:

https://www.nflplayers.com/Articles/CBA-News/Letter-Clarifying-the-Truth-About-the-Revenue-Split/

“The correct characterization of the revenue breakdown is as follows:
Players receive approximately 50 percent of ALL revenues in the NFL. Or, Players receive less than 60 percent of “Total Revenue” after the owners take expense credits off the top.
For the past two years, the expense credits the owners have received exceeded $1 billion. To provide a factual basis for this representation, below are the agreed upon percentages since 2000:
Players’ Percentage of All Revenues since 2000:
2000-56.5%
2001-52.6%
2002-51.8%
2003-50.5%
2004-52.3%
2005-51.1%
2006-52.7%
2007-51.8%
2008-51.0%
2009-50.6%
Players’ Percentage of “Total Revenue” since 2000:
2000-61.7%
2001-57.1%
2002-56.1%
2003-54.3%
2004-57.0%
2005-55.1%
2006-58.4%
2007-58.0%
2008-57.7%
2009–57.1%
To provide an alternate explanation, the revenue model in the NFL can be defined by this simple formula:
All Revenue minus NFL & Owner Expense Credits equals “Total Revenue”

Yes, but it is a different definition of revenues than the NFL, NBA and MLB, therefore you can’t compare them.

Different doesn’t mean incomparable.

Then again, as I’ve just staved a gigantic hole in the bottom of that particular rhetorical boat of yours, I’ll let be.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/16/12 at 01:19 PM ET

Avatar

Yes.

I’d be much more comfortable with that than with someone who says “You know that contract we negotiated in good faith?  We’re not going to honour it because we don’t want to.”

What if the contract has a clause in it like, say, this?

“The Club and the Player severally and mutually promise and agree to be legally bound by
the League Rules and by any Collective Bargaining Agreement that has been or may be entered
into between the member clubs of the League and the NHLPA, and by all of the terms and
provisions thereof, copies of which shall be open and available for inspection by the Club, its
directors and officers, and the Player, at the main office of the League, the main office of the
Club and the main office of the NHLPA. This SPC is entered into subject to the CBA between
the NHL and the NHLPA and any provisions of this SPC inconsistent with such CBA are
superseded by the provisions of the CBA.”

Sorry for the formatting, but that comes right out of the SPC contract.

In short form, it means… wait for it… CBA > SPC.

So if the CBA changes the SPC can be changed, and players agree to that codicil by signing the SPC.

Which means your entire position is meaningless.  It’s not wrong or evil or anything like that.  It is a provision the players themselves agreed to both as a union, and then again as individual players when they signed whatever their last SPC was.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/16/12 at 01:33 PM ET

WingsFaninCO's avatar

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/16/12 at 01:33 PM ET

So what you’re saying is: “The owners signed these contracts to get players on their teams with no intention of fulfilling them.  But hey, there’s this clause which makes it legal, so it’s OK.”

Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it isn’t a total scumbag move.  The Westboro Baptist Church’as actions are legal, racism is legal, but I think we can all agree that those are scumbag actions.

 

 

Posted by WingsFaninCO on 10/16/12 at 01:53 PM ET

Avatar

So what you’re saying is: “The owners signed these contracts to get players on their teams with no intention of fulfilling them.  But hey, there’s this clause which makes it legal, so it’s OK.”

No.  I’m saying that if the complaint is that owners aren’t following the terms of the SPCs by having a new CBA that changes some of the terms, when there’s a clause in the contract you’re complaining about not being followed that says if the CBA changes the contract doesn’t have to be followed…

... it just looks like a really, really bad argument.

If the terms of the SPC is allegedly sacrosanct then all of the terms of the SPC should be held similarly, not just the ones that work out best in your favor in that one instant.

Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it isn’t a total scumbag move.  The Westboro Baptist Church’as actions are legal, racism is legal, but I think we can all agree that those are scumbag actions.

Comparing following through on the terms of a legally agreed-to contract with racism.  Alrighty then.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/16/12 at 02:00 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

I showed you what the NBA pulls out.

You called things that aren’t actually team revenues that and then said it’s a back-out when in fact it’s a never-was.

Well spank my ass and call me Susan, eh JJ?  By gosh and by golly suddenly it’s starting to look like there may just be another league out there which backs out expenses.

Not backs, BACKED.  That article is from 2010. That old CBA expired and was replaced with a new one that doesn’t have an expense credit in it.  You know… actual relevant and current information.

Thank you for helping to strengthen my point that there is often a very large gap between gross and net and that 57% of net comes out to about 50% of gross.

Thank you for further failing to read the article you tried to use against me which proved my point.  Once again from the cheap seats:

The OLD NFL CBA gave the owners a $1B expense credit before factoring in the players’ share, the NEW NFL CBA does not do this.  In fact, the NEW NFL CBA *specifically states* that any OLD backing out of revenues will cease going forward.

I would absolutely LOVE if a similar letter were presented to hockey fans on the same split because it VERY CLEARLY SHOWS how the league’s current 50/50 split request is nothing but a PR move that doesn’t get the NHL to a split that’s comparable to the NFL’s

Are you going to try to switch positions and argue now about how you were saying this all along and people were just misunderstanding you?  Please tell me that. 

Of course they pull out taxes in revenue. I would fully expect that.  If the NHL were to start claiming that they could pull stadium renovation costs from revenue definitions, I would favor this because there are also plenty of ways laid out in the NFL’s CBA that those have to be correct accounted for and mutually agreed upon.  Again, this is not the same as what the NHL does as far as deducting direct costs. 

 

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/16/12 at 02:08 PM ET

Avatar

For all of the talk about the NFL, NBA and MLB, I say so what? If the NFL players union caves everytime some baby-momma needs her cheque what does that have to do with what an NHL player should earn? If an NBA player on average makes more than an average NHL player, don’t care.  I am waiting for someone to explain to me why 50/50 is fair and 57/43 for the players isn’t “fair” considering both sides agreed to it already once, but a “fair” counter offer from the owners.

None of this is relevant if the NHL keeps assuming $40 million in losses in Phoenix every season because they are poor at running an NHL franchise. The owners shut down the season, I don’t care if they want more of the spoils since neither side has moral high ground on what is fair. When the players strike, I will blame them for the lost season.

But if we insist that the NFL has a “fair or equivalent” arrangement then:

By gosh and by golly suddenly it’s starting to look like there may just be another league out there which backs out expenses.

And the NFL comes out to a 57% (CBA speak) vs 51% (real money speak) percent split. Isn’t that what the NHLPA has been saying for all along, they actually are only getting 51% of all revenues because the league gets their credit up front? So 57% CBA speak is really a split of 51/49 real money speak which is pretty darn close to the mythical 50/50 “fair” break point once you consider the credit taken for costs?

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 10/16/12 at 02:10 PM ET

WingsFaninCO's avatar

Let’s recap…

I’d be much more comfortable with that than with someone who says “You know that contract we negotiated in good faith?  We’re not going to honour it because we don’t want to.”

This is what Garth said (and I would like to echo the same sentiment).  And your response was to quote the contract clause in question and say

Which means your entire position is meaningless.

Which is to say that “because this is legal it’s wrong for you to oppose the actions.”

I simply provided examples of other legal things which are also scumbag actions to support my statement that “just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s a good thing or something I have to like.  The owners are being complete d!ckfaces, regardless of whether or not the actions are legal.

Posted by WingsFaninCO on 10/16/12 at 02:19 PM ET

Avatar

What if the contract has a clause in it like, say, this?

I like the way you asked a question then when you didn’t like the answers you got, you changed the question.

Posted by Garth on 10/16/12 at 02:28 PM ET

Avatar

You called things that aren’t actually team revenues that and then said it’s a back-out when in fact it’s a never-was.

“40% of proceeds from arena signage
40% of proceeds from luxury suites
50% of proceeds from arena naming rights
50% of the proceeds from team practice facility naming rights”

Nah, those aren’t team revenues exempted from consideration of player share. smile

Not backs, BACKED.  That article is from 2010. That old CBA expired and was replaced with a new one that doesn’t have an expense credit in it.  You know… actual relevant and current information.

But your position was that what the NHL paid it’s players couldn’t be compared to what other leagues paid their players because they didn’t back out expenses.  I showed you that the NFL did.

Are you going to try to switch positions and argue now about how you were saying this all along and people were just misunderstanding you?  Please tell me that.

Are you actually so incredibly addicted to misrepresentation that you’re going to pretend you don’t know I’ve said player share of sport generated revenue is a smaller percentage than player share of total revenue this whole time?

My point this whole time is that while the NHL has gotten around 50% of ‘total revenue’ that number has been demonstrably higher than the amount of ‘total revenue’ players in other sports have gotten.  I illustrated that by doing some quick math using actual revenue for each sport and then taking average player salary multiplied by number of players to demonstrate those percentages.

Goodness JJ.  Maybe I’m being too hard on you.  Maybe you’re not just misrepresenting me on purpose.  It appears to be a condition.

Again, this is not the same as what the NHL does as far as deducting direct costs.

If league A pulls out 400 million to pay for direct costs but league B pulls out 400 million ‘just because’, is it your position that those two leagues aren’t comparable because one pulls out money for costs and the other doesn’t?

Which is to say that “because this is legal it’s wrong for you to oppose the actions.”

You are JJ-ing.  My position is that it is pretty silly to complain about the owners not following the terms of the SPC in negotiating a new CBA when one of the terms of the SPC is that it can be changed if there is a new CBA.

In question form: why is the portion of the SPC that says it can be changed as the result of a new CBA any less important than any other portion of the same document?

In follow up question form: if a new CBA allowed every player in the NHL a 10% raise, would players be ‘dickfaces’ for taking the 10% raise even though their SPC dictated a different, lower, rate of compensation?

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/16/12 at 02:40 PM ET

Avatar

I like the way you asked a question then when you didn’t like the answers you got, you changed the question.

I knew the answer I would get, which is why I asked the question.  Then I provided information which put that answer in a different light and asked a follow up question.

So considering that the SPC actually says right in it that it can be changed if the CBA changes, do you still feel the same way?

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/16/12 at 02:43 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Nah, those aren’t team revenues exempted from consideration of player share

They play 40 games in an NBA arena per season.  Most of these city arenas host 200 or more events per year. Not everybody who steps foot in the new Barclay’s Center is going to be doing so to see a Nets game, but you’d have 100% of ad revenue generated on-site be credited to the Nets?

But your position was that what the NHL paid it’s players couldn’t be compared to what other leagues paid their players because they didn’t back out expenses.  I showed you that the NFL did.

If you change my position to argue against it, that’s what is called a strawman. 

that number has been demonstrably higher than the amount of ‘total revenue’ players in other sports have gotten.

Here is another sentence where you use a word you don’t understand. In order for it to be “demonstrably” higher, you actually have to be able to demonstrate that it is higher. The NFL Numbers you just posted certainly don’t demonstrate that.

If league A pulls out 400 million to pay for direct costs but league B pulls out 400 million ‘just because’, is it your position that those two leagues aren’t comparable because one pulls out money for costs and the other doesn’t?

I’m sorry, which league pray-tell pulls out money “just because”?  Are you again going back to the broken arena signage argument and continuing to ignore the elephant in the room wherein the NHL ALSO counts that revenue similarly but adds the direct costs in a way that is unique to them?

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/16/12 at 02:59 PM ET

WingsFaninCO's avatar

You are JJ-ing.  My position is that it is pretty silly to complain about the owners not following the terms of the SPC in negotiating a new CBA when one of the terms of the SPC is that it can be changed if there is a new CBA.

I’m “JJ-ing,” eh?  Is this the term you use when people remind you of the original point of conversation?  Your incredibly digressive debate style pretty much demands that others do this, so I assume you encounter a lot of people who are “:JJ-ing.”  Your initial question began with the words “would you…be comfortable with.”  This is a question regarding another’s opinion or feelings.  You later went on to say that the opinion of others is invalid (an incredibly arrogant and misguided statement by itself).  And used a strictly literal interpretation of legality to support your statement.  So, it’s OK for you to use a strictly literal interperetation of the text of a contract and define validity through legality, but it’s not OK for others to “strictly and literally” interperet your original question?

In question form: why is the portion of the SPC that says it can be changed as the result of a new CBA any less important than any other portion of the same document?

I never said that any part was more or less important.  Stop putting words in my mouth.

In follow up question form: if a new CBA allowed every player in the NHL a 10% raise, would players be ‘dickfaces’ for taking the 10% raise even though their SPC dictated a different, lower, rate of compensation?

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/16/12 at 02:40 PM ET

Only if they negotiated contracts while intending to go on strike the following season until they got their raise.

Posted by WingsFaninCO on 10/16/12 at 03:20 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Only if they negotiated contracts while intending to go on strike the following season until they got their raise.

That was more or less my response to a very similar question.

Yes, the players signing $200M contracts and then demanding a 10 or 20% raise before showing up for work would be dickfaces.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/16/12 at 03:25 PM ET

Avatar

So if the CBA changes the SPC can be changed, and players agree to that codicil by signing the SPC.

The players DO NOT have to accept that the owners want to change the CBA in a way that would grealy affect the signed SPCs. You see the CBA > SPC and to re-negotiate a CBA which would devalue the exisitng SPCs would be a stupid thing to do if you are a player. That is because the CBA > SPC and by agreeing to the new CBA you are giving the owners the right to pay you less than what you originally agreed to. You do understand that the CBA > SPC and therefore the reason why the players will not agree to the new CBA that the owners proposed. Right?  I am arguing that the CBA shouldn’t be changed in the way that the league is asking because it is a scumbag move since it greatly diminishes the values of the SPCs that were agreed to about a month ago.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 10/16/12 at 03:55 PM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

H19, that just makes too much sense, you’ve GOT to be wrong.. or J.J.ing

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 10/16/12 at 06:17 PM ET

Avatar

They play 40 games in an NBA arena per season.  Most of these city arenas host 200 or more events per year. Not everybody who steps foot in the new Barclay’s Center is going to be doing so to see a Nets game, but you’d have 100% of ad revenue generated on-site be credited to the Nets?

Weird.  So, why is that codicil only included in the NBA CBA and not any other leagues?  Is the implication that the NBA is the only league where the owners own the building? smile

If you change my position to argue against it, that’s what is called a strawman.

You need to get into an argument with this guy, who said:

“None of the other leagues subtract direct costs from revenues.”

Then again, since that was you… it could be an interesting debate.  The NHL subtracted costs from revenues.  The NFL for years subtracted costs from revenues.  This means your position regarding their incompatability for comparison was wrong on it’s face.

Here is another sentence where you use a word you don’t understand. In order for it to be “demonstrably” higher, you actually have to be able to demonstrate that it is higher.

And I did.  Unfortunately your toggle was switched to ‘overwhelming evidence required mode’ so you chose to disregard everything I said since you didn’t like the conclusion.  I’ll wait for it to switch down to ‘say whatever you want with no evidence at all mode’ and see if it works better then.

I’m sorry, which league pray-tell pulls out money “just because”?

I’m attempting to see if you actually believe what you say, or if you’re just being disingenuous.

I’m “JJ-ing,” eh?  Is this the term you use when people remind you of the original point of conversation?

No, it’s the term I use when people make up something someone else has said, as you did when you said the following “Which is to say that “because this is legal it’s wrong for you to oppose the actions.”

That is a flawed ‘interpretation’ of my comments.  My position here is that it is hypocritical to criticize the owners for modifying the terms of the SPC in the event of a new CBA when one of the terms in the SPC says they can modify the SPC in the event of a new CBA.

You are complaining that the owners aren’t following the terms of the SPC, demanding behavior from them instead that would not be following the terms of the SPC.

The only difference is you don’t want them to follow a different part of the SPC.

I never said that any part was more or less important.  Stop putting words in my mouth.

Then why do you want the Owners to be obligated to follow some portions of an SPC but not others, which is clearly your position if you believe the portions of SPCs which concern compensation should be held sacrosanct while the portions of the SPC that allow CBA-related modifications be disregarded?

Only if they negotiated contracts while intending to go on strike the following season until they got their raise.

You are conflating the two issues.  Issue 1) Are SPCs inviolable?  Issue 2) Are CBAs contracts, or documents of succession that need to model previous CBAs?.

Those SPCs were negotiated with language that allowed for their modification in limilteless ways in the event of a new CBA, both in favor of owners or players.

I am arguing that the CBA shouldn’t be changed in the way that the league is asking because it is a scumbag move since it greatly diminishes the values of the SPCs that were agreed to about a month ago.

So then your position is that the levels of compensation established by a CBA at any point are… eternal?

Interesting.  In your opinion, what modifications to the CBA are allowed to be made and what external events might substantiate such a change?

In my opinion, if either a league or a PA wanted CBAs to be inviolate and unchangeable, they’d sort of put that right in the document in the part where it describes the term of agreement.  Both sides want to be able to change things every so often.  The risk in that, obviously, is that the changes might not always go the way they want.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/17/12 at 05:30 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Weird.  So, why is that codicil only included in the NBA CBA and not any other leagues?  Is the implication that the NBA is the only league where the owners own the building?

Because that’s not true that it’s an NBA-only thing.

This means your position regarding their incompatability for comparison was wrong on it’s face.

Do you honestly not know what adding an e and a d to the end of the word “subtract” does to that word?

The NFL number you’re trying to confidently compare to the NHL number no longer includes that revenue adjustment.

So then your position is that the levels of compensation established by a CBA at any point are… eternal?

This is another strawman that is easily avoidable with an actual read of what was said.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/17/12 at 08:05 AM ET

Avatar

So then your position is that the levels of compensation established by a CBA at any point are… eternal?

Why do you make stuff up and try to diminish the argument? If you don’t understand what I wrote, don’t try to paraphrase it because it only betrays your lack of understanding.

 

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 10/17/12 at 08:58 AM ET

WingsFaninCO's avatar

I’m “JJ-ing,” eh?  Is this the term you use when people remind you of the original point of conversation?

No, it’s the term I use when people make up something someone else has said, as you did when you said the following “Which is to say that “because this is legal it’s wrong for you to oppose the actions.”

What portion of that is “made up?”  The part where I refer to when you asked for the opinions of others?  Or the part where you said the opinions of others were invalid, based solely on the legal reality of the contracts?  Because you definitely said both of those things.  When I reminded you of them, you said I was “JJ-ing.”

it’s the term I use when people make up something someone else has said

So, you were “JJ-ing” when you said this?:

Then why do you want the Owners to be obligated to follow some portions of an SPC but not others,

Since I have never said anything of the sort, and you assume my distaste for the owner’s INTENTIONS has something to do with following/not following specific clauses in the the SPC.

That is a flawed ‘interpretation’ of my comments.  My position here is that it is hypocritical to criticize the owners for modifying the terms of the SPC in the event of a new CBA when one of the terms in the SPC says they can modify the SPC in the event of a new CBA

.

Your position is based on a flawed interpretation of my comments.  I have repeatedly said, and you have repeatedly ignored, that my issue is with the owners’ intent.  They negotiated contracts with NO INTENTION of ever fulfilling their end. 

Then why do you want the Owners to be obligated to follow some portions of an SPC but not others, which is clearly your position if you believe the portions of SPCs which concern compensation should be held sacrosanct while the portions of the SPC that allow CBA-related modifications be disregarded?[/quote

I believe what are doing here is the same thing you call “JJ-ing.”  I will say it again for the slow and hard of hearing (blind?):  I have never said ANYTHING about disregarding portions of the SPC.

Only if they negotiated contracts while intending to go on strike the following season until they got their raise.

You are conflating the two issues.  Issue 1) Are SPCs inviolable?  Issue 2) Are CBAs contracts, or documents of succession that need to model previous CBAs?.

No, I am not.  The SPCs were not signed in a vaccum, and the owners’ intentions have EVERYTHING to do with MY OPINION (which is what you secifically requested).  The funny part of this is that every time you get an answer to your questions that you don’t like or your terrible attempts at logical trapping fail, you accuse the other party of “JJ-ing” or call their opinions “invalid.”  It’s funny because it’s about 1 step away from a temper tantrum.

Those SPCs were negotiated with language that allowed for their modification in limilteless ways in the event of a new CBA, both in favor of owners or players.

Yes, this is correct (at least you were right about 1 thing, eh?).  But, and this is the part you should read twice, it doesn’t have fuch-all to do with the owners’ actions or intentions.

Posted by WingsFaninCO on 10/17/12 at 03:00 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