Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

The Battle Continues

from Damien Cox of The Spin,

This deal will get done eventually. Perhaps not in time to save this season. Next season might also be impacted. But eventually, there will be a new CBA. 

But how will the distrust created by this standoff, layered on top of unprecedented public cynicism over the entire mess, ever be reduced? Its hard to see at this point how, or when, the league and union might have a relationship based on mutual respect and common goals as was supposed to be the case after the last lockout but turned out to be a mirage.

At this point, growing the pie, which would benefits owners and players, appears to be the last objective on the minds of either side. It's scorched earth for both. This isn't about moving forward; we're back to the early 1990s in terms of the relationship between owners and players.

And isn't that the worst scenario of all? That this battle won't just be the biggest, nastiest one yet, but rather the first in a series in this new century.

more

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

Comments

Red Winger's avatar

And isn’t that the worst scenario of all? That this battle won’t just be the biggest, nastiest one yet, but rather the first in a series in this new century.

Worst scenario of all? No, I don’t think so.

If the league is indeed headed in that direction, where half-or-full-seasons are lost every four or five years when CBA’s expire, then what loss would be equated with the eventual demise of the NHL? In fact, if that is what the ‘new’ NHL will be all about, the fact it will die a slow suicide is actually good news.

Who needs to waste time on a league like that?

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste Marie on 12/03/12 at 10:00 AM ET

Avatar

This is by far the best article Cox has written on the CBA.

Posted by timbits on 12/03/12 at 10:54 AM ET

Avatar

If the league is indeed headed in that direction, where half-or-full-seasons are lost every four or five years when CBA’s expire

Isn’t that where we are now? 3 lockouts in a row.

At this point, growing the pie, which would benefits owners and players, appears to be the last objective on the minds of either side

This has been my biggest issue with the continual lockouts. It is so shortsighted on both sides that they need to start from scratch every 5 years when they could be growing the game. They would rather fight to get 100% of nothing, than share anything. Whether it is front loaded contracts that in essence has players taking a larger share from other players, lack of adequate revenue sharing among the owners or the split between owners and players.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 12/03/12 at 11:32 AM ET

redxblack's avatar

The players have NEVER instigated a lockout. The PA made efforts to avoid one this time.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 12/03/12 at 03:09 PM ET

Red Winger's avatar

The PA made efforts to avoid one this time.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 12/03/12 at 02:09 PM ET

Do tell!!

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste Marie on 12/03/12 at 03:25 PM ET

redxblack's avatar

They offered to extend the CBA a year while negotiating a new CBA. The league dismissed that right out of hand.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 12/03/12 at 04:06 PM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

They also requested independent financial info LAST summer that the NHL gave them this past August

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 12/03/12 at 06:01 PM ET

Avatar

They offered to extend the CBA a year while negotiating a new CBA. The league dismissed that right out of hand.

That is so generous of the players, to offer to keep 57% of all revenue.

Posted by timbits on 12/03/12 at 11:07 PM ET

Avatar

That is so generous of the players, to offer to keep 57% of all revenue.

It’s not about being generous, it’s about continuing the record revenues that the league brought in last year rather than shutting down for a year to the detriment of all.

The NHL would still be making money while negotiating, if they had accepted, rather than losing $18-20M a day.

But yeah, you’re right, it’s better now that nobody is making money, no NHL teams are playing hockey and fans are getting more and more bitter and pissed off with each day that goes by.

Good call, NHL.

Posted by Garth on 12/04/12 at 12:29 AM ET

redxblack's avatar

Garth already said it best, but I can’t let the disinfo slide. It isn’t 57% of ALL revenue. It’s 57% split from HOCKEY RELATED REVENUE, which excludes MANY revenue streams. Since the NHL books aren’t public, no one knows EXACTLY what the actual percentage is. The NHL could clear that up by being honest and transparent (attributes they have had difficulty with historically).

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 12/04/12 at 09:21 AM ET

Avatar

The NHL would still be making money while negotiating, if they had accepted, rather than losing $18-20M a day.

I don’t think you’ve got a solid grasp on the numbers here, Garth.

Revenue /= profits.  There are at least 6 and as many as 12 teams that make a decent, noteworthy amount of money from hockey ops.  There are at least 10 and as many as 20 who either lose money or who make so little from hockey ops its absence isn’t missed by the business unit.

It’s the above that is the largest hurdle many of the pro-player people here have a hard time getting over.

Seriously, if a solid majority of NHL teams were making money from playing NHL games, do you really think they’d be stupid enough to throw out 100% of those ‘shadow profits’ just to try and increase them by 12% max?

That’s insanely stupid… and these guys didn’t all get to be where they are by making insanely stupid financial decisions.

This is why I think the NHL’s version of financials is a whole lot closer to the truth than most other people will allow themselves to believe.  If there was some big pot o’ gold there at the end of every season for most clubs, they’d be unwilling to give it up just to get 12% more of it.  NBA owners were.  NFL owners were, MLB owners were.  That’s because those sports actually make them a lot of money.  There’s no sense in losing a 1000 bucks in year one so they can make 1120 bucks in years 1-7.  Not when there’s at least an outside chance they won’t actually make that 1120 moving forward.

Now… if most of the teams aren’t actually making much money, and some are even posting significant losses from hockey ops, suddenly ‘losing’ whatever they’d make in a year is no big deal.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 12/04/12 at 04:23 PM ET

Avatar

Now… if most of the teams aren’t actually making much money, and some are even posting significant losses from hockey ops, suddenly ‘losing’ whatever they’d make in a year is no big deal.

And it’s exactly this short-sightedness that is wrong with the situation.

If it were simply a case of losing money now that will easily be gained back soon it would be one thing, but obviously that’s not the case.  You lose a year of exposure, you damage the relationship with NBC, you piss off fans potentially significantly damaging the league’s ability to grow the sport.

But yeah, no big deal at all.

Posted by Garth on 12/04/12 at 09:28 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