Marlies Open Thread

Victor: Agreed. But the owners negotiated the most recent contracts on a statement published by Bettsy , being “Business as Usual”. Then the CBA talks come into play with all the changes. 

If I am a player, with a “guaranteed” contract, in a growing game, and then am told I am losing part of that because of the CBA clause, I am going to be very pissed. The Owners control the structure of the game, and so far have fucked it up IMO. They are the equity, they are the risk takers. However, I see deceipt in the way this has gone down. They are exacting funding from the players for their own mistakes and greed (because the rich franchisees do not want to support the weaker ones, yet they are in a partnership, and they are the ones that make the decisions that have facilitated this fiscal division). Your model is more like Soccer, independently owned teams. This is a tightly controlled Partnership with a BOG, in which franchisees do not want to support each other. I don’t have a problem with MLSE not wishing to share revenue with Phoenix, but as  a partner in the NHL, it is their responsibility to deal with these kind of  issues, Its a good situation if you can say I’m happy with a broken system because I don’t have to do anything, I’ll just make the players fund it.  Yep, its all a matter of individual perspective.

I see your points but both the teams and players have been aware of the risks of signing the contracts they did.  The teams are competing with each other to get the best assets for their organizations and the players are looking out for their own needs.  Talk has been out there for a year or more that the situation we’re in now could happen and both parties signed deals up to the last day knowing that it could go either way.  Players wanted to signed just in case the cap went down and pay would be less but current contracts might be honored, whereas teams wanted these guys locked up with the hope the contracts would be adjusted in their best case scenario.  Both parties were fully aware of the risks and possibilities and there’s no deception or malice because of it.

I just don’t see how that players have any leverage here.  They are losing millions by missing another year of their careers.  The owners on the other hand in many cities will fill the building with concerts and what not.  If not, they are making money at any age anyways.  A 70 year old owner can make as much money as a 40 year old owner.  It’s not the same for players.  They have a short career and need to play now. and the sooner they come to terms with that the better off they’ll be……and still making gazillions while doing so.

W4 – I come at this from the point of view that I no longer care who is right or wrong.  In fact, there is no right or wrong; it really comes down to which side is stronger.  That being said, an argument could be made that the players like Parise and Suter had the benefit of desperate owners trying to get a deal done before the new CBA and Fehr and the NHLPA knew these concessions were going to be asked for.  If Parise and Suter weren’t aware, which I doubt, then they would have been if Fehr had started negotiating in a timely fashion.

Again, there is no right or wrong and IMHO the NHL is the economically stronger side so it is likely the players that will lose in the long run.  A dollar lost today will never be recovered no matter how good a deal Fehr gets the NHLPA to sign.

Exactly – there is probably not one owner whose lifestyle will see any appreciable difference whether or not the entire year is lost.  Not so for the players.  Can we say the same of Fehr?

Victor:  I certainly am in agreement that the Players have little or no leverage. I do think Bettsy’s “Business As Usual” underlies a big issue in the intent of each of the parties. It is difficult to see how giving up a season can do anything but hurt the Players financially, and to that end they will need to surrender the “moral high gound” for want of a better term. What disappoints me the most is the NHL’s desire to continue with a broken system. For example, if they feel certain teams are needed for TV contract reasons, then that is a Business Development cost. Should they unilaterally decide the Players fund this. They decided to award franchises to the Sunshine states and pocketed the franchise fees, but now want the Players to fund the losses. The point I am trying to make is they, the Owners need to fix a number of the “structural” issues of the league to make it stronger and drive the TV contract revenue. I don’t see any desire to address anything other than the share of the pot, 

Appreciate your posts.

My thoughts as well!!!

spot on

K2L: Whether there is right or wrong, your last paragraph is SPOT ON. I find I am caring about ethically, but I think the most important thing for a player would be knowing their personal  ”break-even” point, in terms of HRR share and games lost. Gotta be real close. Fehr may be good at Brinkmanship, but this has the feel of Kennedy-Kruschev. They say we were just hours away from annihaltion. Wonder how Fehr-Bettsy, works.  If the NHL grows annually, NBC gets a better deal with a free year being in Year 11.

I believe that your business model only works if you fundamentally believe the players should have any say in what is their fair share and I don’t.  The notion that the “players” have to fund the weak teams is absurd to me.  IMO, they should be paid fairly based on market value irregardless of the current structure.  Then let the teams manage themselves independently of the players.  In this system the players would earn a fair amount and let the teams earn ‘all’ the rest. It’s not like these guys earn salaries like you and I.

It would be relatively simple for the Toronto’s of the league to support the struggling franchises if it was only one or two team like PHX that were  struggling . Fact of the matter is according to Forbes there is not just one or two teams in the red. There are no less then 18. Sure we can relocate PHX but but where in hell are we going to put Florida ,Tampa, Carolina ,Nashville, Columbus or some of the others ? 

There are only 6 teams that could make enough profit to logically contribute significant funds to RS so how much would you have to take away from those teams to correct the problem? 50% ,60 %% . Lets say you took 50 % from the top six teams. According to Forbes numbers that would amount to about to roughly 100 mil. Is that enough to fix the problem and even more important is it even remotely fair to do this ?

Cutting cost is another option but how much can they really save there with all the escalating costs of doing business. Would the players be willing to do without the single hotel rooms. part of the massive per deims when they travel ,insurance on their contracts medical insurance for  their families in order to help cuts cost for some of these teams ? I would say it wouldn’t put a dent in the problem. 

Teams can of course refuse to sign players to goofy contracts but where would that leave most of the teams in the US if their team weren’t competitive . Most of the teams in the states can’t charge the huge ticket prices the large market do and it even more likely their buildings would be 1/2 empty if they didn’t ice a good product. They have little choice but pony up the big bucks to bring in those higher paid players to have a chance of filling the buildings 

I fail to see where the money will come from if the players refuse to accept a reduction in salary. 

Good Post!

I haven’t loaded office yet so the PP ones will have to wait.

Anybody know whats in store on HNIC classcis tonite??