Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

Winter Classic Should Not Have Been Scheduled In A CBA Year

from Tony Gallagher of the Vancouver Province,

Well, what do you say to the fan from Vancouver who may have been a longtime Leafs fan or Wings fan or even a hockey fan who likes Michigan football, who booked his or her flight on Expedia or some other such non-refundable website many moons ago?

Do you say, simply, "Well, you shouldn't have been so stupid as to think we'd actually have a CBA by now? It's your fault for not having been more aware of our lockout history, or how much we expected the players to cave. Did you think the players hired the foremost sports labour lawyer in North America just to accept our first or second offer? Were you tricked by our skyrocketing revenues and deluded into thinking we wouldn't be so stupid as to precipitate a long lockout, because there was too much money at stake? "Silly you. You were the buyer - and everyone knows it's buyer beware."

Knowing what the NHL powers that be must have known, the Winter Classic was a non-starter from the moment it was ever discussed.

more

Filed in: NHL Talk, | KK Hockey | Permalink
 

Comments

Avatar

The NHL gets to hold gate the money up front for over a year, refunds from third parties are not the NHL’s concern and the fans are the greatest fans in the world, so screw ‘em they’ll be back.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 11/07/12 at 10:39 AM ET

WingsFaninCO's avatar

Adds a whole new meaning to the term “disposable income.”  *flush*

Hopefully some people still make a new years’ trip out of it and go spend some dough at the casino, or wherever else.  Detroit could use the dough and I’m sure people can still have a reasonably good time on new years’.

From a selfish point of view, this works out for me because I now have a chance to attend next year.  Whereas this year was a no go from the start.

Posted by WingsFaninCO on 11/07/12 at 11:13 AM ET

Avatar

Also, had the NHL not scheduled a WC all we’d hear would be ‘See?  That means the NHL knew they were going to screw us fans out of hockey way in advance!  They didn’t even try to have a season!’

Either way people would spin up things to agree with what they already thought.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/07/12 at 11:14 AM ET

Avatar

.... and yet the NHL managed to cancel in time to ensure they didn’t lose any money even if their fans did. The game did not need to be cancelled for logistical reasons until December 15, but that had the potential to cost the NHL money.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 11/07/12 at 02:08 PM ET

redxblack's avatar

But the NHL was going to lock the players out well in advance of the expiration to attempt to coerce concessions. Scheduling the winter classic was to get the fans to give a shit if games got cancelled. It was a bargaining chip the league called in too early.

Hockey 1919 is dead on right. The league screwed the fans (again) with the lockout, and then again (again) by offering a game they would not deliver while holding the cash in their coffers.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 11/07/12 at 02:16 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Also, had the NHL not scheduled a WC all we’d hear would be ‘See?  That means the NHL knew they were going to screw us fans out of hockey way in advance!  They didn’t even try to have a season!’

Either way people would spin up things to agree with what they already thought.

Well sure, but go ahead and tell us what the “right” reaction would have been as fans started to notice that the NHL wasn’t making plans for a Winter Classic?

I mean, if the NHL was ready to start negotiating as early as they say they were and it was the NHLPA being slow coming to the table being the reason that there wasn’t an offer until mid-July, this would have at least been a good way for the NHL to start on the negotiating process by telling everybody back in January that they were going to hold off on putting together Winter Classic plans until they had a better feeling about the upcoming negotiations.

But they weren’t worried about that. They were worried about keeping the status quo alive so that fan confidence wouldn’t waver during the season and going into the playoffs.

Not that I blame them at all for having done that. I certainly would have done the same thing if I were the guy in charge of decisions like that one.

But with all of the available evidence, it’s kind of getting harder and harder to say that a lockout wasn’t a foregone conclusion.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/07/12 at 02:23 PM ET

Avatar

I don’t see the NHL returning the cash and offering a voucher that allows a person to purchase tickets for the event when it is rescheduled in the future at the same price.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 11/07/12 at 02:25 PM ET

Avatar

Well sure, but go ahead and tell us what the “right” reaction would have been as fans started to notice that the NHL wasn’t making plans for a Winter Classic?

There isn’t one, really.  Either way you were going to cast the NHL in the least-flattering light… so it really never mattered what they did or did not do.

Just like it really doesn’t matter what offers they do or do not make.  They could have made the 50-50 offer back in May and they would have been crushed for failing to move off of it in the months since.  ‘Failing to negotiate in good faith’ or whatnot.

So, they started at 43 then went to 46 then 48 then 50 and you still think it’s all their fault there isn’t any hockey right now.

I’m slightly curious to see what you think the NHL could have done to absolve them of the guilt you have apportioned them for this work stoppage?

I mean, if the NHL was ready to start negotiating as early as they say they were and it was the NHLPA being slow coming to the table being the reason that there wasn’t an offer until mid-July, this would have at least been a good way for the NHL to start on the negotiating process by telling everybody back in January that they were going to hold off on putting together Winter Classic plans until they had a better feeling about the upcoming negotiations.

And then the howls would have been ‘the NHL is holding the WC hostage!  How dare they soil our noble game!  Rawr!’

But with all of the available evidence, it’s kind of getting harder and harder to say that a lockout wasn’t a foregone conclusion.

Who said the lockout wasn’t a foregone conclusion?  What I’ve said is that blaming the NHL for it being a foregone conclusion is silly.  They’ve made offers and the NHLPA has made offers.  Both sides have rejected the others offers.  Both sides could end the work stoppage at any moment were they to accept the current offer of the other party.  Both sides bear equal responsibility in there being no hockey right now, for whatever that ‘blame’ is worth.

I tend to think that’s not very much, but it’s the only game in town right now for the most part.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/07/12 at 06:07 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

There isn’t one, really.  Either way you were going to cast the NHL in the least-flattering light… so it really never mattered what they did or did not do.

Come on now; you should know that I was specifically asking what you would have said to it back then.

So, they started at 43 then went to 46 then 48 then 50 and you still think it’s all their fault there isn’t any hockey right now.

I’m slightly curious to see what you think the NHL could have done to absolve them of the guilt you have apportioned them for this work stoppage?

They could have played Global Thermonuclear War.

What I’ve said is that blaming the NHL for it being a foregone conclusion is silly.  They’ve made offers and the NHLPA has made offers.  Both sides have rejected the others offers.  Both sides could end the work stoppage at any moment were they to accept the current offer of the other party.  Both sides bear equal responsibility in there being no hockey right now, for whatever that ‘blame’ is worth.

Yeah, still a lockout buddy. They haven’t made good offers, so it’s still their fault.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/07/12 at 07:03 PM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

I’m slightly curious to see what you think the NHL could have done to absolve them of the guilt you have apportioned them for this work stoppage?

I’d have liked to see them get the independent financial information requests by the NHLPA last summer instead of August/Sept of this summer for starts, but that’s just me.

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 11/07/12 at 08:25 PM ET

Avatar

So, they started at 43 then went to 46 then 48 then 50 and you still think it’s all their fault there isn’t any hockey right now.

Boy, aren’t they wonderful?  Going from a completely unrealistic offer to an offer in which the PA is still the only one who would be making any concessions.  Shucks, I wonder why people aren’t throwing rose petals at the league’s feet!

Both sides bear equal responsibility in there being no hockey right now, for whatever that ‘blame’ is worth.

Nope.  One side decided to lock the other side out before ever even considering any negotiation.

And you’re right, either side could accept the other’s offer at any time.

I guess that makes the PA equally unreasonable for not accepting 43% of the HRR as the NHL were for not accepting a gradual decline of the PA’s share until it reached 50%?  You know, because all one side has to do is accept the other’s offer.  Never mind if one of them is reasonable and one is absolutely unreasonable.

Right.  Equal blame.

Posted by Garth on 11/07/12 at 09:49 PM ET

Avatar

Come on now; you should know that I was specifically asking what you would have said to it back then.

No, you said “Well sure, but go ahead and tell us what the “right” reaction would have been as fans started to notice that the NHL wasn’t making plans for a Winter Classic?”

That’s not asking me for what I would have thought.  That’s asking me for what ‘fans’ would think.

If you are now asking me for what I would have thought, I’d have thought the same thing I did anyway: There wasn’t going to be a WC because there wasn’t going to be any hockey at all by that point.

Based on Fehr getting hired and the way the last CBA went, I figured there would be at best a shortened season and a significant chance for no hockey in 2013 at all.  I still think the odds of no hockey in 2012-13 is about 40%.

They could have played Global Thermonuclear War.

Which illustrates the point.  There’s literally nothing short of just re-upping the old deal immediately that would have gotten the NHL off the hook with you.  To wit:

Yeah, still a lockout buddy. They haven’t made good offers, so it’s still their fault.

43, 46, 48, 50.  At least three of those are perfectly fine offers right in line with what players in other sports make.  The reason your perspective is skewed here is that you’re indexing things off of the NHLPA’s old (and ridiculous) 57% of HRR.  The deal the NHLPA actually signed in 2005 was for a 54% split with the step ups as revenue increased.

So, they signed a deal for 54% 6 years ago, but an offer for 50 (and really 50+) isn’t a good offer?

Bah.

I’d have liked to see them get the independent financial information requests by the NHLPA last summer instead of August/Sept of this summer for starts, but that’s just me.

Why do you think the NHLPA would want two year old data?  The info they got last summer wouldn’t have included this past years revenues.  The NHLPA would have simply (and justifiably) required the release of the 2011-12 data before they composed an offer… which they likely wouldn’t have gotten until late summer of this year anyway.  I don’t know for sure how long it takes to roll up financial docs for non-private consumption for NHL teams, but I know it takes a full 2 months to do it for organizations under some form of audit when those businesses only have a hundred or so employees.

Boy, aren’t they wonderful?  Going from a completely unrealistic offer to an offer in which the PA is still the only one who would be making any concessions.  Shucks, I wonder why people aren’t throwing rose petals at the league’s feet!

That’s fairly silly hyperbole though, Garth.  I’m pretty sure noone’s suggested the NHL should be lauded for their negotiation, just that they have, in fact, negotiated and made a number of good faith offers the NHLPA has simply refused.

And there’s nothing wrong with the NHLPA refusing those offers, either.  It’s Fehr’s responsibility to get the best deal possible for his players, and if he thinks blowing off half a years or maybe even a full year of hockey can do that, more power to him.

No angels, no demons, just two groups of financially loaded people wrangling over millions of dollars.

I guess that makes the PA equally unreasonable for not accepting 43% of the HRR as the NHL were for not accepting a gradual decline of the PA’s share until it reached 50%?

You are not accurately describing the initial positions of the two parties.  What was the NHLPA’s first ‘offer’, and what was the NHL’s?  Both sides were equally at fault for not accepting the first offers.  What were the second offers?  Both sides were equally at fault there.  Third offers, fourth offers, et cetera.

That’s why you and JJ (and most people here, really) are looking at this situation from a skewed perspective.  You seem to think that since the NHLPA made 57% before, that’s the number from which ‘fairness’ should be indexed.

I would imagine you don’t have that same opinion about any other contracts in any other situations because I’m fairly sure you know that as situations change acceptable terms change.  What you are willing to pay for a thing at one time in no way determines what you might be willing to pay for the same thing years later.

There’s certainly a bit of ‘rooting interest’ at play here.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/08/12 at 05:29 AM ET

redxblack's avatar

I’m guessing you’ve never been involved in a contract negotiation. No two parties would ever want a clean slate contract negotiation, unless one side was intending to screw the other. It is standard operating procedure to take the last contract as the starting off point and make changes from that position. To not start at 57% only makes sense if this were a brand new league that has never put a team on ice. If the league wants to offer less than 57%, they need to be willing to give concessions that make the loss of HRR worth it to the players. They haven’t. They’ve come in as hardliners with a “my way or the highway” approach, whereas the players were willing to extend the contract another year while the deal was negotiated. This league does not understand negotiation.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 11/08/12 at 08:02 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

There’s literally nothing short of just re-upping the old deal immediately that would have gotten the NHL off the hook with you.

Completely false. They could have tried negotiating in good faith to make the tweaks necessary to the old deal instead of jumping straight into lockout standoff.

The reason your perspective is skewed here is that you’re indexing things off of the NHLPA’s old (and ridiculous) 57% of HRR.  The deal the NHLPA actually signed in 2005 was for a 54% split with the step ups as revenue increased.

And you’re still making a comparison of sports that don’t deduct direct costs from their expenses when counting revenues, meaning it is not right in line.

So, they signed a deal for 54% 6 years ago, but an offer for 50 (and really 50+) isn’t a good offer?

Look at when the 50% offer was made and try to remember that we’re talking about the fact that the lockout is the problem.

 

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/08/12 at 08:04 AM ET

Avatar

That’s fairly silly hyperbole though, Garth.  I’m pretty sure noone’s suggested the NHL should be lauded for their negotiation, just that they have, blah blah blah

How is it that you acknowledge I was using hyperbole and then respond as if I weren’t?

I would imagine you don’t have that same opinion about any other contracts in any other situations because I’m fairly sure you know that as situations change acceptable terms change.

Of course I do.  I get my contract at work renewed every year.  Do you think I would be happy if they started at zero every year?  Because you know that they don’t, right?  That it’s not how contrtact negotiation works, right?  The starting point for my next contract will be what I’m making on this contract.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if I ever own a company YOU are the person I want to hire.  I can hire you, make money off your work and then I can bend you over and make you take whatever pay cut I want, because negiations need to start from zero, nevermind what you were making before and nevermind how much money I’m bringing in 100% because of the work you do.

Posted by Garth on 11/08/12 at 09:13 AM ET

Avatar

I’m guessing you’ve never been involved in a contract negotiation. No two parties would ever want a clean slate contract negotiation, unless one side was intending to screw the other

I’ve been in all sorts of contract negotiations, and neither side adheres to what happened before unless they feel it serves the interests of their side.

That’s why you and most of the pro-player commentors here adhere to the ‘precedent’ of an expired agreement.  You feel that it justifies your position, so you use it.

If the league wants to offer less than 57%, they need to be willing to give concessions that make the loss of HRR worth it to the players.

No, they don’t.  You’re the one that’s obviously never been involved in many negotiations, if any at all.

The perspective from which either side approaches this is to get the best possible deal for their side.  Not to make sure every offer they give is fair, just, or perfectly combines what they are asking for with what they are giving up.

That is what Arbitrators do.  Negotiatiors are acting in the best interests of their clients as described by their clients.  Arbitrators are engaged without the issues of just one side or the other in mind, but with reaching a fair and equitable deal.

They’ve come in as hardliners with a “my way or the highway” approach, whereas the players were willing to extend the contract another year while the deal was negotiated. This league does not understand negotiation.

You don’t understand negotiation.  The NHL came in at 43, then 46, then 48, then 50, then 50+.  That’s not ‘my way or the highway’, red.  It’s not even close.

Completely false. They could have tried negotiating in good faith to make the tweaks necessary to the old deal instead of jumping straight into lockout standoff.

You are wrong.  The NHL does not see the same problems that you claim to see, ergo they have no real interest in addressing things they don’t perceive as problems, or at least noteworthy enough problems to spend much capital in addressing.

That’s why the NHL could do nothing to prevent you from haring off after them.  Your perspective of the issues at play here is completely disassociated from theirs.  You see this issue almost entirely and solely from the players perspective and have couched the vast majority of your complaints about these negotiations in the light of how it impacts the players.

And you’re still making a comparison of sports that don’t deduct direct costs from their expenses when counting revenues, meaning it is not right in line.

And you’re still claiming expertise on the CBAs of other leagues that you haven’t demonstrated.  The NBA holds back a ton of luxury suite money and arena advertising money.  The NFL only puts 55% of league media revenue into the Revenue pot.

Whether the money is being held back specifically to address costs or just generally is immaterial.  No pro league with a revenue split system starts out with 100% of revenue in the pot.  None of them.

Look at when the 50% offer was made and try to remember that we’re talking about the fact that the lockout is the problem.

The lockout is the natural result of two sides being unwilling to accept the offer of their opposition.  The ‘problem’, insofar as this even qualifies as a point anyone but maybe similarly inclined fans care about, is in assigning the blame to one side for not signing a deal while absolving the other side of not signing a deal.

How is it that you acknowledge I was using hyperbole and then respond as if I weren’t?

Because I’m not entirely sure you weren’t 70-80% serious with your hyperbolic denunciations.

I get my contract at work renewed every year.  Do you think I would be happy if they started at zero every year?  Because you know that they don’t, right?  That it’s not how contrtact negotiation works, right?  The starting point for my next contract will be what I’m making on this contract.

You are wrong.  The starting point for your next contract is what they could pay someone to come in and do what you do, not what you got paid to do what you do.

That’s how employment markets actually work.  If you came in next year and said you wanted a 10% raise, if they decided you weren’t worth that you’d be out the door.  If there were a plethora of guys available who would do your job for 10% less than you are making and who’d do it just as well… guess what.

It’s a little different since we’re talking about a pretty limited labor/mgmt relationship here.  There is only one NHL, as opposed to hundreds or thousands of places that do what your business does.

Still, if where you worked now was the only place in the USA where you could do your job, and they came to you next year and said they had to cut your pay 10%... would you just stomp off and sulk in a corner?

 

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/08/12 at 09:43 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

You see this issue almost entirely and solely from the players perspective and have couched the vast majority of your complaints about these negotiations in the light of how it impacts the players.

Wrong again. I’m a fan of seeing hockey and I didn’t see the last CBA as a roadblock to attaining that goal. The lockout prevents it and the lockout is something that the owners have instituted without ever having explained the need for one to me.

And you’re still claiming expertise on the CBAs of other leagues that you haven’t demonstrated.  The NBA holds back a ton of luxury suite money and arena advertising money.  The NFL only puts 55% of league media revenue into the Revenue pot.

Which of those are direct costs again? 

Whether the money is being held back specifically to address costs or just generally is immaterial.  No pro league with a revenue split system starts out with 100% of revenue in the pot.  None of them.

See, when I say they don’t deduct direct costs, you’re still somehow reading me saying that the other leagues count 100% of revenues.  Why are you arguing against something I didn’t say?

It appears as though your position is that all leagues count revenues as anything other than 100% of every dollar that comes in and therefore they must all do it the exact same way. That’s a large leap to make.

The lockout is the natural result of two sides being unwilling to accept the offer of their opposition.  The ‘problem’, insofar as this even qualifies as a point anyone but maybe similarly inclined fans care about, is in assigning the blame to one side for not signing a deal while absolving the other side of not signing a deal.

Again, hockey seemed to work under the last CBA. The league has not adequately explained why it had to change so drastically. That is preventing me from seeing hockey, therefore it is their fault.

It’s not rocket science. I don’t care about their businesses; I care about the game. The NHL is keeping me from seeing what I’ve been willing to pay premium dollars for over the last seven years for a reason I don’t like.  I understand their position. I know why they’re doing it. If I were more interested in business than I am in hockey, I’d be more detached.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/08/12 at 09:53 AM ET

Avatar

I don’t understand how “fair” is now part of the discussion again since after a couple of months the sides are at some definition of 50/50.  Is this a lesson on how to talk out of both side of your mouth since 57% is ridiculous, but 43% is just a negotiating tactic . Everyone agrees that both sides have the right to do whatever the heck they want to do. I have been told that “fair” has nothing to with a negotiation since it is each side getting as much as they can and now I am supposed to care about whether 50/50 is fair since all of the cool kids are doing it?

Do I care about the deal both sides make? Somewhat, but really in the end it doesn’t help me in any way who gets more. So in any rational discussion the only interest I have in the whole thing is seeing games played.  There is only one side preventing games from being played. If you think otherwise you don’t understand how the CBA works, how you can work in the absence of a CBA, how labor law works, or the difference between strikes and lockouts. It is really pointless debating it any further.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 11/08/12 at 10:39 AM ET

Avatar

Wrong again. I’m a fan of seeing hockey and I didn’t see the last CBA as a roadblock to attaining that goal.

As I said, you approach this issue almost universally from the players side.

See, when I say they don’t deduct direct costs, you’re still somehow reading me saying that the other leagues count 100% of revenues.  Why are you arguing against something I didn’t say?

I had assumed you were trying to make an intelligent argument, JJ.  An intelligent argument would be ‘other leagues don’t hold back money but the NHL does, so the NHL is wrong’.

If you’re making a stupid argument, like ‘Other leagues hold back a bunch of money just because, but since the NHL holds back money for expenses that’s like totally different’.. then, well, that’s stupid.

All professional leagues with revenue splits back out boatloads of revenue before it gets split.  The NHL does it under the guise of ‘costs’, other leagues just do it without ascribing a particular liner note.

Either way, all leagues do it.

It appears as though your position is that all leagues count revenues as anything other than 100% of every dollar that comes in and therefore they must all do it the exact same way.

No, that’s also a stupid position.  I think all leagues do it, so trying to draw a distinction between what the NHL does and what other leagues do just because the NHL calls it something different is stupid.

If the NHL wanted to pull 500 mil out of the revenue pot for expenses or if they wanted to pull 500 mil out of the revenue pot for shits and giggles… what’s the difference?  Neither ‘reason’ why the money is pulled out impacts the real economics of the league in any way at all.

The actual issues are 1) What gets included in the revenue pot and 2) how is that pot split.

We know that in every league with a codified revenue split the answer to 1) is some significant amount less than 100% of the actual revenue.  We don’t know precisely how that shakes out in real dollars, but we know all the league back out a big piece of the pie ahead of time.  The NHL does it for ‘expenses’ and the NBA and NFL just do it.  The answer to 2) is whatever the CBA says it is in the specific sport.

Again, hockey seemed to work under the last CBA. The league has not adequately explained why it had to change so drastically. That is preventing me from seeing hockey, therefore it is their fault.

Like I said, you see this from the players perspective.  You think it seemed to work under the last CBA but have no real grasp of the financial dynamics that affected a whole boatload of teams and have chosen to actively disbelieve information presented to you to the contrary.

Further, you are trying to characterize going fro 57 to 50+ as a ‘drastic’ change, which is quite an exaggeration.  The last CBA was pretty drastic.  This one is barely a course correction.  Any real dollar losses from it are going to be gone in 3 or 4 years tops.  That’s not drastic, that’s a temporary inconvenience.

Finally, based on the flawed assumptions you’ve made earlier and your unwillingness to believe anything that disputes them, you’ve concluded that it’s one parties fault.

Oh well.  There was never a chance the NHL could ever have ended up with any other outcome with regards to your opinion short of re-upping the last CBA.

I understand their position. I know why they’re doing it. If I were more interested in business than I am in hockey, I’d be more detached.

Eyeroll.  Comprehending what is going on doesn’t make me ‘detached’, JJ.  It just means I am able to understand that there is no rational target for my disappointment.

Maybe if you were more interested in business you’d be able to have the same view of the situation rather than being a slave to your biases.

Personally, I’m looking forward to there being hockey again so there are other things to discuss, but since there isn’t this is all we have right now, more or less.

I don’t understand how “fair” is now part of the discussion again since after a couple of months the sides are at some definition of 50/50.

I completely agree.  ‘Fair’ is a meaningless term when it comes to a negotiation.  Negotiations are always adversarial in nature.  It’s like whining about a faceoff being unfair because one guy won it all the time.  It is what it is.  Either win the faceoff or shut up about it and keep playing.

So in any rational discussion the only interest I have in the whole thing is seeing games played.  There is only one side preventing games from being played.

Wrong.  If the NHLPA had accepted any of the NHL’s first 5 offers there’d be games going on today.  If the NHL had accepted any of the NHLPA’s offers there’d be games going on today.

It’s an easy concept to grasp if you aren’t wrapped up in predisposition.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/08/12 at 11:30 AM ET

Avatar

There is only one side preventing games from being played. If you think otherwise you don’t understand how the CBA works, how you can work in the absence of a CBA, how labor law works, or the difference between strikes and lockouts. It is really pointless debating it any further.

If you think capitulation by either side to the other sides demands is the only way to play hockey and that it has any bearing on what I quoted above, you don’t understand and never will. Everything else is just a negotiating tactic of which we can agree or disagree to what is fair or not fair.

 

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 11/08/12 at 11:55 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

As I said, you approach this issue almost universally from the players side.

Now you’re HiHDing.

No, that’s also a stupid position.  I think all leagues do it, so trying to draw a distinction between what the NHL does and what other leagues do just because the NHL calls it something different is stupid.

That’s a lot of words you used in that comment to essentially repeat what I had said.  Yes, you’re saying the amounts are the same. I am not because the NHL ALSO holds back things like luxury box receipts and arena signage on top of deducting direct costs.  The leagues do not define revenues similarly, so comparing player percentages compared to drastically different revenue definitions is meaningless.

I do appreciate how you backhandedly admitted your position was stupid though.

Like I said, you see this from the players perspective.  You think it seemed to work under the last CBA but have no real grasp of the financial dynamics that affected a whole boatload of teams and have chosen to actively disbelieve information presented to you to the contrary.

Careful speaking from a position about the “grasp of the financial dynamics that affected a whole boatload of teams”, unless you’re going to present something new which displays you’re speaking from a different position. You’re also working on a shattered definition of belief. I don’t disbelieve the Forbes numbers, I question their completeness. Forbes has the very best numbers that are publicly available… which turns out is (according to the NHL itself) not a very large portion of the numbers. 

You’ve chosen to ignore the fact that the league itself doesn’t put any stock in the figures you’re preaching as gospel. I’m simply looking at it from a larger perspective.

Further, you are trying to characterize going fro 57 to 50+ as a ‘drastic’ change, which is quite an exaggeration.

Your definition of drastic and characterizations of what is and isn’t an exaggeration is moot until you produce for me one of those 16-year contracts you were haranguing on about earlier.

Oh well.  There was never a chance the NHL could ever have ended up with any other outcome with regards to your opinion short of re-upping the last CBA.

Again, that is completely untrue. There are certainly many things I would have changed about the last CBA. You’re creating a strawman.

Eyeroll.  Comprehending what is going on doesn’t make me ‘detached’, JJ.  It just means I am able to understand that there is no rational target for my disappointment.

Maybe if you were more interested in business you’d be able to have the same view of the situation rather than being a slave to your biases.

Hahahaha.  “I’m not detached, I’m [unnecessarily wordy description of detached]!”

Like I said, I have the same view of the situation; I just have a different perspective.

For instance, I think “slave to your biases” is an oxymoronic charge, as they are both fluid and a part of what makes you who you are. Being aware of them allows you to embrace them and to use them constructively, or to overcome them… or in some people’s cases, it gives them something to run from as though they’re weaknesses.

We call those people detached. Personally, I think stoicism is the path to putting yourself in chains, but that’s a discussion much better suited for face-to-face interaction where nonverbal communication tells the entire truth.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/08/12 at 12:02 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

There is only one side preventing games from being played. If you think otherwise you don’t understand how the CBA works, how you can work in the absence of a CBA, how labor law works, or the difference between strikes and lockouts. It is really pointless debating it any further.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 11/08/12 at 11:55 AM ET

Maybe you should simplify it down to a comparative math equation and then parrot it for a few weeks.

No CBA = CBA

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/08/12 at 12:05 PM ET

Avatar

If you think capitulation by either side to the other sides demands is the only way to play hockey and that it has any bearing on what I quoted above, you don’t understand and never will.

If you think that playing without a CBA was ever an even remotely plausible option to either side you don’t understand anything and never will.

Yes, you’re saying the amounts are the same.

You are JJing again.

“We know that in every league with a codified revenue split the answer to 1) is some significant amount less than 100% of the actual revenue.  We don’t know precisely how that shakes out in real dollars, but we know all the league back out a big piece of the pie ahead of time.”

Your definition of drastic and characterizations of what is and isn’t an exaggeration is moot until you produce for me one of those 16-year contracts you were haranguing on about earlier.

For someone who is as willing as you are to completely fabricate my positions, you trying to hold me to a comment made in obvious exaggeration is rather bemusing.

Again, that is completely untrue.

Outstanding.  Perhaps eventually rather than just saying it you’ll get around to actually addressing the issue.  Or not, I suspect.

Like I said, I have the same view of the situation; I just have a different perspective.

I agree.  You view this from the players perspective, I view it from a neutral perspective.  It doesn’t make you wrong, just biased.

Personally, I think stoicism is the path to putting yourself in chains,

You’re confusing stoicism as a psychological approach with neutrality on a given issue, JJ.

Which is unsurprising given your proclivity to latch onto and exaggerate the minor in constant attempts to avoid the major.

No CBA = CBA

So, how would the league work in the absence of a CBA?  Who gets the money?  Does it all just go into a pot to sit whilst negotiations occur?

I’m curious if any of you actually thought that through.  I suspect not, but I’m willing to be surprised.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/08/12 at 12:54 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

“We know that in every league with a codified revenue split the answer to 1) is some significant amount less than 100% of the actual revenue.  We don’t know precisely how that shakes out in real dollars, but we know all the league back out a big piece of the pie ahead of time.”

Right, and your follow-up comments indicate that instead of worrying about the precise difference, you’d rather just treat it the same so you can compare players shares across leagues.

For someone who is as willing as you are to completely fabricate my positions, you trying to hold me to a comment made in obvious exaggeration is rather bemusing.

I’m just saying… it made it harder to take your writing seriously.  Sorry.

Outstanding.  Perhaps eventually rather than just saying it you’ll get around to actually addressing the issue.  Or not, I suspect.

Not sure how many times I have to say that there are plenty of things I’d have changed about the last CBA (as well as my entire comment history which enumerates those positions) before you’ll stop lying and saying that nothing short of re-signing that one would have satisfied me.  Instead, I’m not going to worry about convincing you. I’ll just keep reminding you that every time you create that strawman about me, I’ll simply rebuke it and move on. It is not true.

You’re confusing stoicism as a psychological approach with neutrality on a given issue, JJ.

You’re forgetting you mentioned your disappointment, which is an emotional state. Your neutrality comes from coping.

So, how would the league work in the absence of a CBA?  Who gets the money?  Does it all just go into a pot to sit whilst negotiations occur?

The players get what their contracts say they get. That’s not a difficult to understand concept.

Everything else (every single other minor detail) is worked out at a practical level or it’s worked out in a courtroom. No good guys or bad guys, just starting from zero and deciding how the rules work.

 

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/08/12 at 01:15 PM ET

Avatar

My company was recently awarded a contract, when the contract was awarded it voided the existing CBA with the union operating the site and the site is not the type that can ever be shut down.  Did the work stop? No. Did we stop paying the workers or bar them entry? No, but there was no agreed upon CBA, so how did that happen? I am being told this is not possible and not a reasonable option.

Were we talking about the types of money the NHL and NHLPA? No. Were we talking about operating assets in excess of the NHL revenues? Yes. The deal took a lot of work, angry words, rollback in some benefits, one time payouts and make whole concessions, but this type of stuff it seems would have been far too complicated for Bettman and Fehr to work out it.

So if we did not agree to operate while a new CBA was being worked out, do you think the customer that awarded the contract, would have blamed us for not operating the site or the union for not accepting the first deal we offered? I am waiting for the world classs negotiator to give me the proper answer so I know what to do in the future.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 11/08/12 at 04:20 PM ET

WingsFaninCO's avatar

I’ve been in all sorts of contract negotiations, 

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/08/12 at 09:43 AM ET

Also sleeps with supermodels, has a super high IQ, benches 550, runs the mile in 4:40 flat, has “all sorts of” experience with whatever else the current topic of discussion on the internet is, and drinks Dos Equis.  Don’t believe him?  well, just drive to [insert vague location here] and find out for yourself.

I view it from a neutral perspective. 

Posted by HockeyinHD on 11/08/12 at 12:54 PM ET

HAHAHAHA

Posted by WingsFaninCO on 11/08/12 at 05:16 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