NHL Lockout...Whose side are you on?

[The_Admiral]

ESPN's franchise rankings are little more than a glorified marginal-cost-per-win index, rewarding teams who overachieve while supply and demand still dictates low ticket prices, mixed with some largely unquantifiable voodoo about "ownership that tries hard" and "game experience." Let's look at the #28 Carolina Hurricanes, to whom the #30 Detroit Red Wings can only hope to aspire:

The Canes didn't raise prices a cent this year and remain one of the most affordable teams to be a fan of in the league. They also remain one of the most plugged-in teams in hockey when it comes to their community, with events like the annual Caniac Carnival, which included a free preseason game for all fans. The new season is shaping up to be a good year for the Canes, and the exclamation points have been flying on the blog Canes Country. As Limelon sums it up: "I haven't been this excited for this team since the '09 playoffs."

In other words, tickets are cheap because that's what the market bears and they might not miss the playoffs like they did five of the last six years. Shane Douglas and Rick Martel must've had a baby together, because this is a model franchise.

[IceCap]

I directed this in a response to your post Elwood, because I know you've defended the Commissioner with the "he's just a figurehead" and "he's done so many great things, look at the increased revenue!" arguments, though it's obviously open to be responded to by anyone.

They aren't mutually exclusive. He's hired by and answers to the owners. Why would they get rid of a guy when revenues are through the roof and in the last CBA they got basically everything they wanted, including a salary cap? Why change unless he had a significant amount of enemies like Fay Vincent did?

Gary Bettman is not necessarily the reason for the explosion in NHL revenue, but the explosion in NHL revenue is absolutely the reason for his continued employment.

If he's "just a figurehead" though, they don't need him right? What "Gary Bettman is not necessarily the reason for the explosion in NHL revenue, but the explosion in NHL revenue is absolutely the reason for his continued employment" essentially boils down to is "he doesn't really influence anything but things kind of work out nicely so he's kept around."

Ultimately I'm just tired of the dual track arguments coming from the pro-Bettman camp. He's responsible for the increased revenue? Fine, then he's not a powerless figurehead, and he's to blame when things go poorly (labour negotiations, everything involving the Coyotes). He's just a powerless figurehead? Fine, then he's not responsible for the NHL's increased revenue and the saviour of the Edmonton Oilers. He can't be everything some make him out to be.

It's no secret that you're a fan of the Commissioner, and I'm not. I've given you a hard time over it on these boards, but thank you for providing something substantive with your answer.

[RedSox44]

yall should hate Jeremy Jacobs, owner of the Bruins, total jerkweed, and President of the Board of Governors a lot more than you hate Gary Bettman

Bruins fans have been telling everyone else to hate him for years...

[The_Admiral]

On the Forecheck (SBN Preds blog) and Second City Hockey (Hawks) do a nice job tag-teaming the owners here:

Yes, it is possible, I suppose, to continue bleeding money while revenues have been climbing to ever-higher heights for the league, as the NHL has proudly touted repeatedly. Possible, if expenses are escalating even more quickly than revenues are. But how can that be the case? The owners played this card the last time around, too. Let's take a look at how USA Today broke down the report that the NHL commissioned former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt to produce in 2004 (PDF), detailing how much money the league was losing ($273 million) at that time:

The league had $1.996 billion in revenues and $2.269 billion in player and other costs. About 75% of revenues - $1.494 billion - went to player costs, which includes salaries, bonuses and benefits.

OK, let's do a little back-of-the-envelope math here. In order to lose $273 million back then, "other costs" (outside of player costs) must have been in the ballpark of $770 million. Since that time, however, the league rolled back player salaries by more than 20%, and put a cap in place, so that player costs rose in line with revenues. In today's world of $3.2 billion in league revenues, that can only mean that "other costs" have basically doubled since then, as player costs have only risen by 25-30% overall.

Even if you use a generous figure of the players getting 60% of revenues today (a little higher than 57% due to high-salary players stashed in the AHL, long-term injury costs, etc.) that puts player costs around $1.9 billion for last season. $3.2 billion in revenue - $1.9 billion in player costs yields more than $1.3 billion in "other costs" that would still allow them to break even, but apparently they are even higher than that if Renaud's informant is correct.

Dirk concludes that in order to piss away that much money, the league would have had to had over 1.3 billion in costs other than player salaries. He also bumps up the percentage of the $3.2 billion revenue that goes to the players to 60%, to account for players in the minors and other costs. So don't throw around your claims of Cristobal Huet and Rusty Olesz, because Dirk already has.

In order for the league to reach that 1.4 billion total (the amount it would need to be twice in order for this loss-number to be true), each team would have to have costs other than player salaries of $43 million. That means trainers, coaches, lawyers, travel costs, other employees and whatever marketing they have to do adds up to that.

Now you might think that doesn't sound all that unreasonable, but that hasn't even factored in what other income teams might have outside of the league-spread HHR. The concessions at the stadium (which good ol' Rocky provides himself, so he's not paying for that, at least the booze), the locals that advertise and market through them, their TV deals in their markets, the other events they have in buildings they own. And of course, the complete crime that is parking.

In order for this to be true, each team would have to be losing somewhere in the neighborhood of $4 million each year. Of course, the $30 million drag that is the Phoenix Coyotes are would get you a long way to that number, if they weren't cancelled out several times over by the Toronto Maple Leafs. Add in all the other Canadian teams that are simply rolling in it these days, and it looks like a mountain that the Panthers, Stars, Ducks and whatever other team might be losing money can climb. And I doubt the Flyers, Rangers, Hawks, Capitals, Bruins, Kings, and Wings are helping them climb that mountain of loss either.

Obviously, none of us buy this. And as Ryan Lambert posted today at Puck Daddy, it's way curious that this number slips out now, instead of when a first offer was made back in July. This sounds like an attempt to gain some traction in the PR war, but it's already lost them more ground (don't you wish bull like this spouted in the presidential election would similarly get laughed out of town instead of treated as gospel by one side or the other?).

So there's a sliver of hope, I guess. I know the owners are greedy, but they're also vain, and they don't like looking stupid. At some point, a few of them are going to get tired of being portrayed as total putzes. There are actually some rumors of division amongst the owners already. They won't become true fissures and and gaps until gate revenues are lost, which won't save the entire season. But because of all this, there'll be hockey at some point before you're welcoming in 2013. Just feel it.

[capn89]

I am on the side of things being split 50/50. I hate Bettman, sure, but he has nothing to do with my thinking because it should be obvious that in situations like this 50/50 makes the most sense. Neither entity (players/NHL) can exist without the other.

[Eye]

I directed this in a response to your post Elwood, because I know you've defended the Commissioner with the "he's just a figurehead" and "he's done so many great things, look at the increased revenue!" arguments, though it's obviously open to be responded to by anyone.

They aren't mutually exclusive. He's hired by and answers to the owners. Why would they get rid of a guy when revenues are through the roof and in the last CBA they got basically everything they wanted, including a salary cap? Why change unless he had a significant amount of enemies like Fay Vincent did?

Gary Bettman is not necessarily the reason for the explosion in NHL revenue, but the explosion in NHL revenue is absolutely the reason for his continued employment.

If he's "just a figurehead" though, they don't need him right? What "Gary Bettman is not necessarily the reason for the explosion in NHL revenue, but the explosion in NHL revenue is absolutely the reason for his continued employment" essentially boils down to is "he doesn't really influence anything but things kind of work out nicely so he's kept around."

Ultimately I'm just tired of the dual track arguments coming from the pro-Bettman camp. He's responsible for the increased revenue? Fine, then he's not a powerless figurehead, and he's to blame when things go poorly (labour negotiations, everything involving the Coyotes). He's just a powerless figurehead? Fine, then he's not responsible for the NHL's increased revenue and the saviour of the Edmonton Oilers. He can't be everything some make him out to be.

It's no secret that you're a fan of the Commissioner, and I'm not. I've given you a hard time over it on these boards, but thank you for providing something substantive with your answer.

On the other other hand though, if he's a powerless figurehead, then he should not be blamed for the shortcomings of the league since he is a powerless figurehead.

[IceCap]

I directed this in a response to your post Elwood, because I know you've defended the Commissioner with the "he's just a figurehead" and "he's done so many great things, look at the increased revenue!" arguments, though it's obviously open to be responded to by anyone.

They aren't mutually exclusive. He's hired by and answers to the owners. Why would they get rid of a guy when revenues are through the roof and in the last CBA they got basically everything they wanted, including a salary cap? Why change unless he had a significant amount of enemies like Fay Vincent did?

Gary Bettman is not necessarily the reason for the explosion in NHL revenue, but the explosion in NHL revenue is absolutely the reason for his continued employment.

If he's "just a figurehead" though, they don't need him right? What "Gary Bettman is not necessarily the reason for the explosion in NHL revenue, but the explosion in NHL revenue is absolutely the reason for his continued employment" essentially boils down to is "he doesn't really influence anything but things kind of work out nicely so he's kept around."

Ultimately I'm just tired of the dual track arguments coming from the pro-Bettman camp. He's responsible for the increased revenue? Fine, then he's not a powerless figurehead, and he's to blame when things go poorly (labour negotiations, everything involving the Coyotes). He's just a powerless figurehead? Fine, then he's not responsible for the NHL's increased revenue and the saviour of the Edmonton Oilers. He can't be everything some make him out to be.

It's no secret that you're a fan of the Commissioner, and I'm not. I've given you a hard time over it on these boards, but thank you for providing something substantive with your answer.

On the other other hand though, if he's a powerless figurehead, then he should not be blamed for the shortcomings of the league since he is a powerless figurehead.

Of course. If that's the line of thought you want to take, however, then you really can't turn around and say "but revenues are up! That Bettman fellow's really good at his job."

Also, any more of this, and we'll be talking in circles if we aren't already.

[Don]

I doubt he is just a figure head. You dont get paid his amount of money for doing nothing but being a public face for the league.

[Sport]

Aaron Portzline of the Columbus Dispatch just tweeted that once locked out the 15th, the Blue Jackets players will be able to use the team's practice rink, which is attached to Nationwide Arena, if they pay the going rate. I assume that also means they'll have to use the Ice Haus' locker rooms as well.

I don't know why, but that's funny to me. I guess it's because they'll essentially be in the building, but they won't be allowed to go through the door that goes to the hallway that connects their regular locker room to the practice ice.

[Magnus]

Just noticed that we now have 3 NHL-related threads here...this one, NHL Golf, and the Desert Experiment...

[PacificCoastRL]

I've got to back the players. Like me, most of the players are blue collar. Any one of us is out to make as much money as they can. Why should the players in hockey or any pro sport be any different than us. Besides, everything coming out of the owners mouths this time around is so condecending.

[OMMF]

Any one of us is out to make as much money as they can.

Incorrect. Now, if you had said that any one of us is out to be as compensated as much as we can, I would agree. Money is not the be all, end all.

[HedleyLamarr]

I've got to back the players. Like me, most of the players are blue collar. Any one of us is out to make as much money as they can. Why should the players in hockey or any pro sport be any different than us. Besides, everything coming out of the owners mouths this time around is so condecending.

At the same time, the players don't have to play in the NHL. There's other hockey leagues to play in. There's other lines of work they can get into. Not as glamorous or luxurious as the NHL, mind you.....but it's difficult for me to feel sympathetic for those making 6+ figures to play a game during labor negotiations.

I'm not siding with the owners (call me Switzerland on this). I love hockey, but I won't shed a tear for the league falling even further down the sports landscape because they miss games.

[PacificCoastRL]

I've got to back the players. Like me, most of the players are blue collar. Any one of us is out to make as much money as they can. Why should the players in hockey or any pro sport be any different than us. Besides, everything coming out of the owners mouths this time around is so condecending.

At the same time, the players don't have to play in the NHL. There's other hockey leagues to play in. There's other lines of work they can get into. Not as glamorous or luxurious as the NHL, mind you.....but it's difficult for me to feel sympathetic for those making 6+ figures to play a game during labor negotiations.

I'm not siding with the owners (call me Switzerland on this). I love hockey, but I won't shed a tear for the league falling even further down the sports landscape because they miss games.

Why would you not have some sympathy for the players. With a lockout looming it appears the owners are the ones that have been heavy-handed and unwilling to negotiate. How much the employees are making is irrelevant. It's the attitude of the two parties involved.

[Cujo]

How much longer does this have to drag out before they start cancelling games?

[dfwabel]

The NHLPA may look to the Canadian provincial courts to avoid a lockout.

The PA has been challenging the lockout in various Canadian provincial bodies by using legal arguments. ?The players are committed to reaching a fair deal with the NHL owners through CBA negotiations and we have told the NHL that the players are willing to continue to negotiate if an agreement isn?t reached prior to the expiration of the CBA,? Canadiens alternate player representative Eric Cole told Dave Stubbs of The Montreal Gazette. ?The NHL seems content to lock out the players if an agreement isn?t reached this week, and we would like the Quebec Labour Board to step in and inform them that their lockout would be in direct violation of the Quebec labour laws.?

La Belle Province is only one jurisdiction in which the NHLPA has looked into law and sought to have the authorities side with the players in preventing a lockout in that region. In both Alberta and Ontario, the PA has prepared challenges to the legality of the owners intended lockout and Stubbs reported the union said Sunday night it was ?exploring its options? in B.C. and Manitoba.

Saying the players just want to play while the owners seem determined to lock them out, Canadiens defenseman Josh Gorges, who is on the NHLPA negotiating committee, told a media conference call Monday afternoon, ?The players are going to use every tool at our disposal to stop them. Nothing is more disruptive to bargaining than a lockout. Our message to the Quebec and Alberta governments, and to the federal government as well, is that we would hope they realize how important hockey is to this country. Hockey is in our blood. Just as important, hundreds if not thousands of workers and businesses count on hockey for their livelihoods. A lockout will have major impact on them as well. Ultimately, we hope that the governments will not allow themselves to be used as rubber stamps in the owners? rush to impose a lockout. We hope they will realize what?s at stake here.?

In Quebec, the NHLPA?s case is based on the fact that the players? union has not been certified by the Quebec Labour Board and, according to Quebec law, an employer cannot lock out employees unless they are represented by a union certified by the QLB.

As we noted here on the blog over the weekend, this follows a similar development out of Western Canada: Scott Cruickshank of The Calgary Herald reported on Saturday that the NHLPA filed a challenge Friday at the Alberta Labour Relations Board aimed at preventing the Flames and Oilers from locking out those players.

Under Alberta labour law, the NHL cannot hold a lockout vote unless it has first requested a mediator. The league did request a mediator and the province appointed one on Aug. 21. But the NHLPA argues in its challenge that the league showed no willingness to participate in the mediation.

?According to the union,? Cruickshank writes, ?the process, at the NHL?s insistence, was halted after only three days -? without a single meeting between the sides. Law requires a 14-day wait for the mediator. Boiled down ? the NHLPA is contending that the league, in its eagerness to clear the way for a Sept. 15 lockout, failed to take certain preliminary steps and then rushed through the process, all of which renders it defective. Meaning a lockout vote should not be permitted.?

It?s uncertain what a finding in favor of the players in Alberta or Quebec would mean elsewhere in Canada or in the U.S. It doesn?t seem as if these provincial laws would have any standing elsewhere, but one can just imagine the mini-chaos that would ensue if the Flames, Oilers and Canadiens were not permitted to keep their players from reporting to training camp later this month while the rest of the NHL?s players were locked out. Will ownership still want to proceed with a lockout that they cannot universally enforce? What will the players who can report do when it comes times to play their preseason games? This is one thing that lawyers from the league, players and various government labor relations entities will no doubt have to sort out.

[Kevin W.]

If the Canadian courts prevent a lockout, I will stand on the roof of my house and sing O Canada.

[HedleyLamarr]

Why would you not have some sympathy for the players. With a lockout looming it appears the owners are the ones that have been heavy-handed and unwilling to negotiate. How much the employees are making is irrelevant. It's the attitude of the two parties involved.

1. They chose to make their profession playing hockey. While there are some with college degrees, most don't, and most also come from backgrounds with privileged parents and developmental institutions that allowed them to play hockey and do nothing else. Other than playing a game and being athletic entertainers, what do they know about hard work?

2. Even the worst NHL players are making 6-figure salaries. Anyone can live more than comfortably on a minimum wage NHL player's yearly income.

I agree that the NHLPA has been more-friendly in early talks. Still doesn't change the fact that I don't have a dog in the fight. They can keep fighting this labor dispute for years and I won't care.

[ElwoodCuse]

Of course. If that's the line of thought you want to take, however, then you really can't turn around and say "but revenues are up! That Bettman fellow's really good at his job."

Also, any more of this, and we'll be talking in circles if we aren't already.

I never said he's really good at his job, I've always simply said that it's easy to see why the owners keep him in place. Everyone whines about "oh no another lockout, what an idiot Bettman is, he really has to go". His job is not to prevent labor disputes, his job is not to look out for fans or "the game", his job is to represent the interests of the owners.

[FrankCostanza]

Why would you not have some sympathy for the players. With a lockout looming it appears the owners are the ones that have been heavy-handed and unwilling to negotiate. How much the employees are making is irrelevant. It's the attitude of the two parties involved.

1. They chose to make their profession playing hockey. While there are some with college degrees, most don't, and most also come from backgrounds with privileged parents and developmental institutions that allowed them to play hockey and do nothing else. Other than playing a game and being athletic entertainers, what do they know about hard work?

2. Even the worst NHL players are making 6-figure salaries. Anyone can live more than comfortably on a minimum wage NHL player's yearly income.

I agree that the NHLPA has been more-friendly in early talks. Still doesn't change the fact that I don't have a dog in the fight. They can keep fighting this labor dispute for years and I won't care.

Plus the owners wanted to start talks about a year ago, but the players kept posturing and delayed them until July. Judging from their actions they are more interested in playing the PR game then negotiating a new contract. When there is a lockout they will be more concerned with taking jobs away from players in Europe then getting a deal done with the owners.