Kukla's Korner

The Malik Report

Stan Fischler goes off on Fehr

One of the most virulently anti-NHLPA voices during the lockout belonged to crusty curmudgeon Stan Fischer, and he’s cranking up the “Panic Meter” to 11 by suggesting that Donald Fehr will find a way to screw things up while rambling on about how great the NHL’s revenue-sharing agreement is despite the fact that big-market owners despise handing blank checks to subsidize their opponents:

The revenue sharing agreement brought labor peace [in Major League Baseball] because the large market teams were able to buy off the mid- and small-market teams just enough to keep them happy, while the big-market teams continued to make large profits and maintain their ridiculous competitive advantage. MLB teams are making money. If the small and medium markets were losing money the way the NHL’s small and medium markets were losing money before the 2004 lockout, the small and medium markets would have held out for a salary cap.

The NHL has several low-revenue teams which are struggling to maintain the salary floor while still making a profit. They are vulnerable to be bought off by the NHL large market/high revenue teams the way baseball’s little guys were bought off. And you had better believe that Fehr knows it.

It’s hard to be “bought off” when it’s Gary Bettman’s narrow $15 million payroll range that’s raising the cap floor to nearly unsustainable levels for franchises who’ve learned the hard way that a salary cap based upon league-wide instead of team-by-team revenues is…a mess…

And then Fischler really goes off into insanity land:

I know it’s possible, but I just can not picture Fehr announcing that he had just negotiated a deal that includes a salary cap.

The NHL’s hard cap with an ironclad link to a percentage of revenues is here to stay, and Fehr won’t screw with it—instead, he’ll be defending the players’ current share of revenues and fighting against a league-mandated rollback in salaries to bail free-spending owners out. Every indication thus far from the PA has suggested that they don’t plan on striking and want to play hockey during the 2012-2013 season, while the NHL’s intently watching the NFL and NBA lockouts to learn how hard it can squeeze the PA while continuing to garner public support because we live in a time where unions are, as a rule, expected to “give back” to the billionaires of the world.

There’s more blather from the once-great writer who’s turned into an embittered caricature of Grandpa Simpson, too…

Filed in: | The Malik Report | Permalink
 

Comments

Hank1974's avatar

I supported the owners in 05. Not anymore.
The players shouldn’t have to give back ONE dime to the owners.
The players took a massive rollback and agreed to a cap that is tied to revenue.
The owners did everything in their power to raise salary’s again. No excuse but their own.

Saying that, if the NHL really wanted to curb long-term, front-loaded deals, it’s easy.
Make the current salary count against the cap instead of averaging it out.
If you pay a guy $12M for 2012-2013, then that’s what counts against the cap.

But if there’s another lockout the NHL can screw itself. I’m done with that league.
They spend more time fighting and clawing to keep horrendous franchises around and then want the players to fix the financial woes that owners themselves created.

Screw the owners and the NHL.

Posted by Hank1974 on 07/14/11 at 11:38 AM ET

Mandingo's avatar

Stan Fischler is probably the kind of guy who supported the reserve clause and wishes it was still part of professional sports.

Posted by Mandingo from The Garage on 07/14/11 at 12:05 PM ET

Avatar

At least Grampa Simpson was funny…

Posted by Iggy Rules on 07/14/11 at 12:05 PM ET

Hank1974's avatar

Posted by Hank1974 on 07/14/11 at 12:11 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

I know it’s possible, but I just can not picture Fehr announcing that he had just negotiated a deal that includes a salary cap.

Glaucoma of the mind?

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 07/14/11 at 12:20 PM ET

Avatar

I wasn’t with either side in 04-05. I knew there was going to be a cap so already I was smarter than the NHLPA. If they would have realized that from the beginning we wouldn’t have lost a whole season. I thought a cap would help overall. Bobby Holik wouldn’t be getting 9mil a year with a cap. But I thought you needed it locked down. One that goes up with revenue or down with revenue wasn’t the answer. If it went down it would screw teams and if it went up it would screw the bottom teams. If the cap was $50mil and locked there things might be better off. What the NHL needs to also realize is that no CBA is idiot proof. The closest they had were the first couple years. With so little money you had to be smarter.

The NHL knows, or should know, that they can’t afford another lockout or a work stoppage of any kind. The NHLPA will need to realize this as well. They’ve made great strides and it would set them back again if they miss games. If there is a lockout the teams that are struggling might be forced to close up shop anyways.

The NHL wanted the average so that teams couldn’t circumvent the cap. Meaning they knew they had more cap space in 2 years so that’s when player x would get more money and in a year that they didn’t have cap space he’d make less. So we’re seeing that you can get around it no matter what. The only way you stop it? Say you can’t have a contract longer than 7 years or something. 7 years isn’t enough to lower a cap number for a top end player.

Move a few franchises to better markets, lock in a salary cap and maybe let there be a wider margin for the floor to ceiling and maybe a different form of revenue sharing. I worry we could miss games but I’m not doom and gloom like a lot of people seem to be. The NHLPA doesn’t want to miss time and the league has some good things with this CBA. So we’re not starting from scratch which is a good thing imo.

Posted by tmoore4075 on 07/14/11 at 12:32 PM ET

Nathan's avatar

People that paint Fehr out to be bad news for labor relations clearly do not understand the history of baseball, and do not understand the LONG history of baseball owners colluding against the players. Even after the players were theoretically granted negotiating rights and some freedom within MLB, the owners were still stifling those newfound rights through gentleman’s agreements and back room deals. And this isn’t really even under debate any more—much of this was determined in court.

Now, Fehr is not perfect. If you want to say that his influence in hockey is scary because of his involvement (or lack thereof—turning a blind eye) in the steroid era, that’s totally fair. But remember, everyone in baseball is guilty for that. The players kept it quiet and nobody from within was willing and/or able to speak loud enough about the dangers to be heard. The union ignored it because the average salary was skyrocketing. The owners, front offices, managers, and coaches ignored it because it was good business to let baseballs go out of the ballpark.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 07/14/11 at 12:42 PM ET

Nathan's avatar

Posted by tmoore4075 on 07/14/11 at 10:32 AM ET

I believe the players submitted at least two proposals within plenty of time to keep the full season in play that included a cap and they were rejected.

The players gave up a lot. And I think other than the early negotiations, they always knew they were going to have to accept a cap.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 07/14/11 at 12:44 PM ET

Nathan's avatar

I am not worried. There are serious issues to work out, but I think both sides learned their lesson last time, and know another stoppage so soon just cannot happen.

I think the biggest part of the new CBA really has nothing to do with the players. The owners need to come to an agreement amongst themselves. The problems that exist belong to the owners. This is their CBA, and now it isn’t working for all of them. They need to fix it, and from my seat, the onus is on them to fix it as much from within as possible, and ask as little of the players to make up for their mistakes.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 07/14/11 at 12:48 PM ET

Avatar

I believe the players submitted at least two proposals within plenty of time to keep the full season in play that included a cap and they were rejected.

The players gave up a lot. And I think other than the early negotiations, they always knew they were going to have to accept a cap.

I dunno if it was before the season would have started but it was sure in time so save some of the season I know that. One was I believe around 50mil not linked to revenue and I know they had a last ditch offer around $45mil not linked. Owners would be jumping for that now wouldn’t they? I think the $50mil cap with the rest of the current CBA, floor and all, might have been good. The floor would have been in the mid-30’s which probably would have been just fine for the small markets.

I just think it’s funny that in 01-02 everyone was compaining about the the Wings and their $65mil payroll. Currently there are 6 teams with payrolls $60mil or above. And the Wings had 9 future hall of famers on that team.

Posted by tmoore4075 on 07/14/11 at 12:50 PM ET

Avatar

The players took a massive rollback and agreed to a cap that is tied to revenue.
The owners did everything in their power to raise salary’s again. No excuse but their own.

That “massive rollback” was wiped out in just 2 years and has since become a massive raise for marginal players, so that arguement is mute.

Saying that, if the NHL really wanted to curb long-term, front-loaded deals, it’s easy.
Make the current salary count against the cap instead of averaging it out.
If you pay a guy $12M for 2012-2013, then that’s what counts against the cap.

Nope again.  Under this plan you could theoretically have a guy make $14 million in year 1 and $1 million in year 2, then go out and sign a 13M player in year 2.  Unless you say a guy can’t make more than 15% of a team’s budget in any one year.  But then high-end contracts would be problematic every year if/when a team’s budget goes down.

The cap is not perfect, but it’s better than the alternative.  40-45% player portion linked to revenue with no revenue sharing, except for national TV deals, is the answer.

Posted by jkm2011 on 07/14/11 at 03:25 PM ET

mrfluffy's avatar

The Owners and the NHL screwed up 6 years ago, so the players should be screwed, again?

Posted by mrfluffy from A wide spot on I-90 in Montana on 07/14/11 at 03:39 PM ET

SnLO's avatar

That “massive rollback” was wiped out in just 2 years

I disagree with this because, if memory serves, Lidstrom was making $10m a season before the lock-out, his salary was rolled back to $7.5m after; his per-year earnings have yet to return to the level they were prior to the lock-out.

Your other assertion about a massive raise for marginal players is accurate though. As well it should. A cap-world is a type of redistribution-of-wealth environment after all.

Posted by SnLO from the sub great-white north on 07/14/11 at 03:45 PM ET

Hank1974's avatar

That “massive rollback” was wiped out in just 2 years and has since become a massive raise for marginal players, so that arguement is mute.

And who gave them those raises? The owners. Not the players fault that guys like Kopecky or Olesz are making $3M+ a year.

40-45% player portion linked to revenue with no revenue sharing, except for national TV deals, is the answer.

Never going to happen.
With no revenue sharing then the cap floor has to drop significantly.
Players won’t go for that AND a greatly reduced piece of the pie.

Players deserve more than 50% of the share. Without them, this league is garbage.
Who’s going to watch an NHL game that averages 5.5 GPG with ECHL players in it?
It’s hard enough to stomach the boring, defense-first-second-and-third mentality when you have awesome talents like Datsyuk, Stamkos and Ovechkin in the league.
Take away those stars and the NHL is nothing but your small town mens-beer league.

All of this mess is the owners faults. Nobody forced them to give out outrageous contracts.
If they kept ticket prices the same, the salaries would be the same today and we’re not at a $65M ceiling and $44M floor.

But the owners got greedy, gouged their fans, drove up revenue, handed out contracts even bigger than before the lockout and now cry foul?
Screw the owners and the NHL.
Viva NHLPA!!!

Posted by Hank1974 on 07/14/11 at 03:49 PM ET

SnLO's avatar

Players deserve more than 50% of the share.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say they deserve a certain share. The players deserve whatever the owners are willing to pay them to play a game, and the player should be able to ply his trade to the highest bidder available.

Posted by SnLO from the sub great-white north on 07/14/11 at 03:58 PM ET

Avatar

Nope again.  Under this plan you could theoretically have a guy make $14 million in year 1 and $1 million in year 2, then go out and sign a 13M player in year 2.

So?  If the guys is willing to do that then who cares?  More than that, how many teams are going to be cool having a guy whose CAP HIT is the league max?  That seriously hinders your ability to compete.

Anyways, the problem is when you have a cap hit of $5M and the guy is making $10M, and when the guy is nearing the end of his career you could just trade him to the Islanders to help them make the cap floor because his cap hit is $5M but he’s only actually making $500K.

How many teams are going to give Christian Ehrhoff the contract Buffalo gave him if his cap hit in the first two years is $10M and $8M respectively?

I wouldn’t go so far as to say they deserve a certain share.

I would.

How many hockey fans are following a team because they want to see Mike Illitch or Ted Leonsis or the Ontario Teachers succeed?

They’re cheering for Zetterberg, Ovechkin and…um, Kessel?

Posted by Garth on 07/14/11 at 04:14 PM ET

SnLO's avatar

Posted by Garth on 07/14/11 at 02:14 PM ET

Key word I take issue with is deserve, as opposed to something like “can earn”

So: A player can earn up to $Y of the team payroll of $X.

Words like deserved / entitled / owed all imply there is a right to something. When, in fact, there isn’t a right at all.

Posted by SnLO from the sub great-white north on 07/14/11 at 04:30 PM ET

SnLO's avatar

How many hockey fans are following a team because they want to see Mike Illitch or Ted Leonsis or the Ontario Teachers succeed?
They’re cheering for Zetterberg, Ovechkin and…um, Kessel?

And actually this takes my comment out of context because my argument doesn’t bring up specific personalities at all. You make a pretty subjective argument too. Do people really follow teams based on the players on the team or do people follow teams and root for the players on that team? It’s kinda a chicken or the egg argument. So, should the league pay players extra above what the team already pays them because they are more popular and have a personal fan base? Thusly entitled to a larger portion of the pie? That almost sounds like what you are suggesting.

I digress. I just hope there is a collective bargaining agreement signed this year with no work stoppage. That’s really all that’s important. Both the players and the owners are going to get their money (unless we quit paying of course)

Posted by SnLO from the sub great-white north on 07/14/11 at 04:41 PM ET

Avatar

So I’m perplexed why not just lower the floor. If some owner thinks he can make cost icing a AHL team until he/she amasses enough first round picks to make playoff run so what. I guess I don’t see the value in yo-yo parity. I mean does the NHL really want the Rangers not to spend money and attract attention in the largest city in the US? What happens to team values? If they are going to crack down on the spending side I’d at least like to see more contracts, and waiver exemptions and such so that a team can at least try to sustain itself via development.

Posted by paulklos on 07/14/11 at 04:54 PM ET

Avatar

Considering that the cap is tied to revenues I don’t see how the owners in total are losing. They make more, they pay more. Seems like the owners on Long Island should ask the owners in Toronto to make less money so it would cost them less to operate their franchise.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 07/14/11 at 04:56 PM ET

Avatar

How many hockey fans are following a team because they want to see Mike Illitch or Ted Leonsis or the Ontario Teachers succeed?

They’re cheering for Zetterberg, Ovechkin and…um, Kessel?

Or do fans follow a team. Honestly even though I discovered Direct TV automatically renewed the NHL package for me last year (thanks!) I just don’t care to watch hockey as a geenral pass time, I’m a Wings fan. I don’t suddenly say oh look the Washington Ovechkin’s are on that is must see TV…

Posted by paulklos on 07/14/11 at 05:02 PM ET

Evilpens's avatar

Marvin Miller was the MLBPA guy who was behind it, But Don Fehr I believe was his Lieutenant

I can’t stand Fischler! But I am worried about it too

This might be the blind squirrel finds acorn for Stan

Posted by Evilpens on 07/14/11 at 05:03 PM ET

Avatar

That almost sounds like what you are suggesting.

Not at all.  I’m not suggesting that specific players deserve specific salaries, I’m saying that people watch hockey because of the hockey players, period, and not because of the owners.  The entire league is based around the skill of the players, on what they do on the ice.  Owners can charge what they want because people want to see the players.

The players deserve a certain share because the reason the NHL makes money is the players.  Like I say, nobody is paying $150 a ticket to watch Ted Leonsis in his owner’s box, they’re paying to see Ovechkin on the ice.

Posted by Garth on 07/14/11 at 05:04 PM ET

Avatar

I think the owners knew this would be coming.  That the league would do well in the larger markets and the cap would continue to rise, making some teams unable to afford the cap.  They would use that as a point that the CBA is broken, using the struggling teams as example.  The NHLPA should smarten up and say that let the players keep the current percentage of revenue and I’ll let the owners do whatever they want with the cap.  In the end, the players will get the same amount of money.

Posted by Kel on 07/14/11 at 05:07 PM ET

Avatar

I don’t suddenly say oh look the Washington Ovechkin’s are on that is must see TV…

That doesn’t contradict what I was saying though.  I chose names to contrast against the owners’ names.  Even if you follow the Red Wings as a team, it’s most likely because of the guys on the ice and what they do, the product rather than because you like what Mike Illitch has done with Little Caesar’s Pizza.

Posted by Garth on 07/14/11 at 05:15 PM ET

SnLO's avatar

The players deserve a certain share because the reason the NHL makes money is the players.

See there it is again: deserve. The players earn a wage, not deserve a share. You and I agree on this: I don’t watch the owners, I watch the team. The players comprise the team. We do disagree: the league is based on the game, not the players.  If the owners didn’t own teams and organize a league, there would be no team for the players to play to earn a wage playing a game for our entertainment. That is what makes them professional, they are compensated for their participation in playing a game for a team. They are able to leverage their skill at the game to earn a higher wage, but they are not entitled to it.

Posted by SnLO from the sub great-white north on 07/14/11 at 05:22 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

If the league is going to talk about how they wanted the last CBA to be a “partnership” with the players, then the players are “entitled” to a share of the take.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 07/14/11 at 05:30 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

To expand, my opinion isn’t based on a “gotcha” because the league said “partnership” while trying to re-sell itself after the lockout.  I honestly do think that the relationship in professional sports between owners and players should be treated as a partnership rather than an employee/boss relationship.

I would say that any profession where you have to be one of maybe only a few thousand, hundred, or even dozen in the world capable of doing it proficiently, there is a certain set of demands and expectations that become necessary.

I think there would still be a league without the current owners we have now, just like there could still be a league if every single player with an NHL contract were to up and vanish - neither of those circumstances would be ideal though.  Both sides rely upon each other too heavily for that. When their success is that heavily intertwined, I’d call it a partnership.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 07/14/11 at 05:49 PM ET

SnLO's avatar

If the league is going to talk about how they wanted the last CBA to be a “partnership” with the players, then the players are “entitled” to a share of the take.

Ok. If that is the case, then how is each players share determined? It should be based on their consideration, but how should that be determined?

Either they are part owners that can draw their share of capital or they are employees that earn a wage. They can’t really have both.

Anyway, the partner thing revolves around sharing in the big picture view the success of the league is also a success for the players.

If you haven’t noticed, I lean in the direction that whole cap thing should be scrapped and the players earn (guaranteed) whatever an owner is willing to pay them.

Posted by SnLO from the sub great-white north on 07/14/11 at 05:50 PM ET

SnLO's avatar

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 07/14/11 at 03:49 PM ET

That posted before I refreshed the page.

Yes.

Posted by SnLO from the sub great-white north on 07/14/11 at 05:53 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Ok. If that is the case, then how is each players share determined? It should be based on their consideration, but how should that be determined?

Open market value within a limited market system, just like we have now. Their share is determined by a relative value scale with numerous variables. An individual player is not a part-owner, he is a part of a collective interest group which is a partner. He’s kind of like a stockholder for the union.

One player individually is not important enough to command anything other than a wage, but the collective players are. That’s the point of the union.

If you haven’t noticed, I lean in the direction that whole cap thing should be scrapped and the players earn (guaranteed) whatever an owner is willing to pay them.

Posted by SnLO from Meeeshegan on 07/14/11 at 03:50 PM ET

I disagree with that, based mostly on the concept that the relationship between owners and players has the potential to work better as a partnership than as a free-for-all.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 07/14/11 at 05:59 PM ET

Nathan's avatar

The cap is not perfect, but it’s better than the alternative.  40-45% player portion linked to revenue with no revenue sharing, except for national TV deals, is the answer.

Posted by jkm2011 on 07/14/11 at 01:25 PM ET

How is it better than the alternative? It may be slightly better than the alternative for the middle third of teams in the NHL (speaking in terms of their economic viability as hockey markets). But it has undeniably hurt the lower third, and arguably hampered the large markets by preventing them from keeping all the talent they develop by capping their spending.

So I’m perplexed why not just lower the floor.

...

What happens to team values? If they are going to crack down on the spending side I’d at least like to see more contracts, and waiver exemptions and such so that a team can at least try to sustain itself via development.

Posted by paulklos on 07/14/11 at 02:54 PM ET

Can’t just lower the floor because that would change the way the pie is cut up. To realistically lower the floor, you either have to A) change the ceiling, B) lower the players’ size of the pie, or C) eliminate the “cost certainty” on player contracts.

And the players aren’t going to want A going down or B, and (some of) the owners won’t go for A going up or C. As it stands today, I think the quickest and most likely way to solve this with minimal strife, whether I like it or not (I don’t like it, but if it keeps me from losing hockey… fine), is to do a little bit of A and a little bit of B, and give the players some kind of carrot back in return for conceding those things (a Larry Bird rule, perhaps?).

To your second part, I think team values are actually good under the current CBA—not so much because of the cap on its own, but because of revenue sharing and player cost certainty. Makes it attractive to buy a team when you know you can sap taxpayers in a city like Glendale or milk owners in markets like the Canadian clubs, New York, Boston, Philly, and Detroit. And I agree whole-heartedly with what you said about exemptions, or some mechanism to allow teams to retain their talent. I give up fighting a cap. I don’t like it, but I know it won’t go anywhere. So at the very least, give my team—one of the best at developing talent—a way to keep all the talent it develops without having to price themselves out of their other needs.

In the end, the players will get the same amount of money.

Posted by Kel on 07/14/11 at 03:07 PM ET

I see what you are saying, but the problem is, the ceiling and floor have to adjust to the revenue projections to keep the cost certainty.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 07/14/11 at 06:25 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

40-45% player portion linked to revenue with no revenue sharing, except for national TV deals, is the answer.

Totally overlooked this the first time.  These numbers are dumb.  Do the math; the league is expecting to make about $3 billion next season.

If you lower the players’ share from 57% to 40%, you’re cutting player salaries by a total of $510 Million. 

Why in the hell would the players take a half-a-billion dollar pay cut?  Why the hell should they?  It’s not like a dime of that money is going to stay in the fans’ pockets.  In fact, the majority of that money will go directly into the owners of the ten most-profitable teams in the league.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 07/14/11 at 06:48 PM ET

SnLO's avatar

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 07/14/11 at 03:59 PM ET

I don’t necessarily disagree with your position, but it does pique my interest to explore with further discussion. It seems we are at the beginning of venturing into a larger and more complex philosophical discussion than I care in this medium. So with that in mind, I would like to attempt clearing any possible misunderstandings:

Though I am not a fan of unions (I am not arguing one way or the other), I understand they can serve a valuable purpose. So, in this instance of working in partnership for a collective bargaining agreement to frame the employment environment for the league, it is worthwhile to have a union. In that respect, I am not advocating a free for all, but I do think that player wages should not be restricted beyond what an owner is willing to pay. Really, as a fan I don’t care what the players are paid or what the team salary structure is. Those are matters between players, management, and owners. I don’t like when the salary arguments become an impediment for the season being played or contracting players to a team.
And to bring everything whole circle, my original discussion was born of wordage being used. It’s like when the douche canoe spouting his over-the-top something is the best blah blah blah… well what is it when something better comes along? Then we invent words like “bestest”. I digress. Back to point: I guess it’s like splitting hairs, but I think it is important to discern the difference between something earned and entitlement. But it seems that whichever word is appropriate has become subjective to the readers/writers context.

Posted by SnLO from the sub great-white north on 07/14/11 at 07:00 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

my original discussion was born of wordage being used. It’s like when the douche canoe spouting his over-the-top something is the best blah blah blah… well what is it when something better comes along? Then we invent words like “bestest”. I digress. Back to point: I guess it’s like splitting hairs, but I think it is important to discern the difference between something earned and entitlement. But it seems that whichever word is appropriate has become subjective to the readers/writers context.

Posted by SnLO from Meeeshegan on 07/14/11 at 05:00 PM ET

As somebody who has a long-standing disdain for the type of writing that jumps erroneously into superlatives and hyperbole, I definitely understand and agree with the overall point about the importance of word usage. I think we understand each other very well as far as it comes to discussing the subtle differences between earned and entitled pay.

Though I am not a fan of unions (I am not arguing one way or the other), I understand they can serve a valuable purpose. So, in this instance of working in partnership for a collective bargaining agreement to frame the employment environment for the league, it is worthwhile to have a union. In that respect, I am not advocating a free for all, but I do think that player wages should not be restricted beyond what an owner is willing to pay. Really, as a fan I don’t care what the players are paid or what the team salary structure is. Those are matters between players, management, and owners. I don’t like when the salary arguments become an impediment for the season being played or contracting players to a team.

I think the only thing about this whole paragraph with which I disagree is the opening of restrictions on player pay.  I personally don’t begrudge any player getting paid $10M or more, but I think my ultimate concern is something of a cousin to your concern about impediments to the season being played. I thought the cap-free system let to an untenable reality as far as salaries went and it helped lead to the cancellation of a season. I’m like you: I just want to watch hockey and root for my team to score goals. I’m not really into rooting for anybody else’s stock portfolio.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 07/14/11 at 07:19 PM ET

Slumpy's avatar

Hmmm, lets see, who to root for, bettman and the BOG that have kept him in power for the last 1,000 years or the players union full of actual athletes and not all lawyers and businessman who made their millions mostly in non-sports ventures.
Hope Fehr and the players union refuse to give in to anything that bettman wants changed.
The best outcome coming out of the next CBA talks hopefully will be bettman getting fired along with his yes men in the front office.
NHL players union has been a pathetic joke since bettman came over from his nba job. Time for them to be strong.

Posted by Slumpy from Detroit on 07/14/11 at 07:20 PM ET

Avatar

I see what you are saying, but the problem is, the ceiling and floor have to adjust to the revenue projections to keep the cost certainty.

That’s not true.  Cost certainty is achieved through the escrow withholding from each paycheck(paycheque).  Under the current CBA, players’ share of revenue is fixed regardless of the cap ceiling/floor.  At the end of the year, the accountants figure out the exact amount the players should receive in total, and the players get a small refund from the withheld funds, while the owners keep the majority.  Of course, the league updates their revenue projections throughout the year and the NHLPA changes the percentage withheld if needed.  In recent years, i believe it’s hovering at around the 15% level.  In other words, the $10 million salary is actually closer to $8.5 million.

Posted by Kel on 07/15/11 at 06:31 AM ET

Add a Comment

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

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

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

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About The Malik Report

The Malik Report is a destination for all things Red Wings-related. I offer biased, perhaps unprofessional-at-times and verbose coverage of my favorite team, their prospects and developmental affiliates. I've joined the Kukla's Korner family with five years of blogging under my belt, and I hope you'll find almost everything you need to follow your Red Wings at a place where all opinions are created equal and we're all friends, talking about hockey and the team we love to follow.