Author
|
Topic: NHL Lockout: A radical analysis
|
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195
|
posted 25 January 2005 06:03 PM
I thought this was a very interesting piece:They planned to bust the union all along NHL owners, by building their own arenas the last ten years, pulled the rug out from under the players' feet, without anyone noticing a thing at the time By Kevin Potvin, Vancouver Republic, Jan. 20 - Feb. 5, 2005 quote: The last time the NHL was embroiled in a long labour dispute, the players took the initiative and forced the owners back to the negotiating table by threatening to start up a league of their own. Wayne Gretzky was the mastermind in that heist, and the touring team, called Gretzky's All-Stars, played eight games around Scandinavia and Germany. They enjoyed great ticket-office success, selling out most games. They returned to North America December 15 and, emboldened with their European success, played more exhibition games against IHL teams. In a matter of days, previously stalled talks between NHL owners and players were on again, and by mid-January, everybody was back in skates and it was game on around the NHL. Owners were forced a decade ago to sign an agreement with the players' that guaranteed escalating salaries. It was either that or see the market value of their franchises bomb from an average of $125 million to something approximating zero once Gretzky's All-Stars multiplied into a few more teams and a bona fide league, owned by players, started up in competition against the NHL.
Read the rest [ 25 January 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195
|
posted 26 January 2005 05:16 PM
I'm surprised no-one has picked up on this thread yet. I am going to give it a friendly bump because *I* really thought it was interesting and was hoping other people here would, too.A lot of us have looked at this labour dispute as "millionaires fighting billionaires." It is. But there is much more to it than that, too. Professional sports is a huge, highly profitable industry, and as Kevin Potvin points out, what we are seeing here is a battle over the revenue that industry generates: a battle between those who are the primary source of that revenue (the players) and those who control the capital and the arenas and the marketing and distribution network through which that revenue is earned. One thought I had about this article is that, by my previous understanding of the 1994 lockout is that at the end, the player's acceptance of a "luxury tax" was seen by contemporary observers a defeat of the union, not a victory. Obviously that has turned out not to be the case. Why? And was this really part of "the plan" all along by the union (which Kevin seems to imply), or was it more of an accident. The other thing I was wondering is that, although it is true that there is no touring team of all-stars like there was in 1994, and Bobby Hull's proposed revival WHA didn't seem to get off the ground at all, there are a lot of players who seem to be doing quite well over in Europe. Do you think the players are over there only because there were fewer acceptable opportunities in N.A. than last time, or is it because the European market is bigger and the opportunities there are better than last time?
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wellington
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4462
|
posted 27 January 2005 08:18 PM
quote: Originally posted by robbie_dee: One thought I had about this article is that, by my previous understanding of the 1994 lockout is that at the end, the player's acceptance of a "luxury tax" was seen by contemporary observers a defeat of the union, not a victory. Obviously that has turned out not to be the case. Why? And was this really part of "the plan" all along by the union (which Kevin seems to imply), or was it more of an accident.
It's not unprecedented for an agreement that appeared at first to be a victory for the owners turns out to be a bonanza for the players. The classic is the major league baseball deal negotiated for the players by Marvin Miller back in the '70s. The baseball owners thought that the restrictions on when a player could become a free agent were a big win - instead, they found that, since the supply of free agents was limited, free agents became very expensive. If anyone still cares ("Hello hockey fans in Canada, the United States and Newfoundland!" ...Hello? Hello?...damn..."), this article by American sportswriter Russ Conway is the best reporting I've seen about the background to this labour dispute.
quote: The other thing I was wondering is that, although it is true that there is no touring team of all-stars like there was in 1994, and Bobby Hull's proposed revival WHA didn't seem to get off the ground at all, there are a lot of players who seem to be doing quite well over in Europe. Do you think the players are over there only because there were fewer acceptable opportunities in N.A. than last time, or is it because the European market is bigger and the opportunities there are better than last time?
For sure it's because there's more opportunities in Europe and the clubs over there are willing to pay good money (although not anywhere near NHL salaries.) As for the article, I didn't find its analysis convincing. Can't be sure, since I wasn't in the room when the decisions were made, but it seems doubtful that the threat of players forming an alternative league was a decisive factor in 1994. There are historical examples of professional athletes trying to form competitive keagues - such as baseball's Players League back in 1890. But the track record for these or other attempts to compete with etsablished leagues isn't great - at best, the new league has been able to force some kind of merger (AFL, ABA, WHA). Also, forming a new league involves a lot of time and cost - it's not something I think NHL owners would see as a credible or immediate threat. Arena building in the last ten years has been driven by teams looking for new revenue sources, notably luxury boxes (which I gather are very lucrative), not by any cunning long-term plan to bust the players' union. If I was startng a rival hockey league, the fact that my competitor owns/has control of an arena is far from the worst problem I'm facing. I'm likely to have a choice of alternative venues, even if they aren't as large or luxurious; and I probably want to keep costs down anyway. Also, since my competitor/former employer is greedy and shortsighted (we're talking about the owner of a pro sports team, remember), it's entirely possible I can rent the arena anyway - Harold Ballard was only too happy to rent the Gardens to the rival WHA Toronto Toros.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
unmaladroit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7325
|
posted 28 January 2005 03:12 PM
mole. ferret. weasel. rat.even with bettman and goodenow egos on the bench for this round of talks, we get this: quote: "We continue to have significant philosophical differences," NHLPA senior director Ted Saskin said in a statement. "No meetings are scheduled and we will not make further comment at this time."
and quote: "We're going to continue to keep quiet on the status and substance of negotiations," Bill Daly, the NHL's vice-president and chief legal officer, said.
well - no news is no news.
From: suspicionville, bc | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 28 January 2005 04:24 PM
It took baseball many years to recover-- and that was just to get the established fan base back. The real damage might come when the kids of that era grow up and don't go to the park with thier kids.It's worse with the NHL, because it has been an economic and entertainment paper tiger-- paper ocelot might be more accurate-- for over a decade now. Is there any gnashing of teeth and rending of clothing going on at water coolers anywhere in Canada over the lack of an NHL season? And if not here, what of the Southern U.S.? Western U.S.? The author forgets that people who love hockey love hockey, and they are getting their fix-- and their money's worth-- at OHA, WHA QMHA areans, to name but a few. The NHL, far from stiffling competition, has gone out and invented it for itself. I'm with the players on this strike, but I'm not all charged up about it as a fan. For many of us, there hasn't been an NHL season in over a decade anyway.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777
|
posted 28 January 2005 11:59 PM
quote: Do you think the players are over there only because there were fewer acceptable opportunities in N.A. than last time, or is it because the European market is bigger and the opportunities there are better than last time?
Part of the reason that the NHL folks are playing in Europe is just to keep in shape. If you go for awhile without playing, you lose it. Also, corny as it may sound these folks just love playing hockey. I think that the huge dollar figures involved obscure the fact that this is a typical employer/worker battle with the employer wanting as much control over the workplace as possible with as little cost as possible. I think the article does raise some really interesting points though. If there were indeed a "player-owned league" it could pull the rug out from underneath the owners.
From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
unmaladroit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7325
|
posted 29 January 2005 12:48 PM
i've googled, and i've gone to a few team sites, but i can't seem to find any references to "owners building thier own rinks in the last ten years".i know corel gave 25 million to ahve their name on it. gm must have anteed lots to place their name in vancouver. i know that's advertising, but maybe shares of the team come into play as well. how do we know that the owners own the newest rinks as asseted in the original article?
From: suspicionville, bc | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
O R Rat
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7870
|
posted 30 January 2005 01:06 PM
Without doubt the owners are not being hoinest abpout their revenues. I think any hockey fan would agree that A hot dog sold at a bruins game is profit for the Bruins, not another company that the Bruins owner operates.One more thing that has been blowing my mind. The lockout commentators keeps on telling fans that the NFL has a hard salary cap. Then they ask, "Why do the players not want one?" The fact the NFL has revenue sharing to make the hard slary cap work. All the owners make the same profits. Green Bay Packers survive, unlike the Winnipeg Jets, because of revenue sharing. Bettmen, the dishonest, fat cat that he is, will not accept revenue sharing. The Penguins have a 10 million payroll. How does a salary cap help them, a small market team Bettmen claims he is trying to help?
From: dund ass | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052
|
posted 01 February 2005 10:37 PM
quote: Originally posted by unmaladroit: i've googled, and i've gone to a few team sites, but i can't seem to find any references to "owners building thier own rinks in the last ten years".i know corel gave 25 million to ahve their name on it. gm must have anteed lots to place their name in vancouver. i know that's advertising, but maybe shares of the team come into play as well. how do we know that the owners own the newest rinks as asseted in the original article?
We don't really, but officially the Griffths family is supposed to have payed for the construction of Vancouvers GM Place on their own, before selling to Orca Bay holdings to cover their losses. I believe most rinks and stadiums are paid for by the public now, along with real-estate deals, particularly in the States (some rent and concessions going back to city hall) but I doubt local or state governments would allow players to use them against their contracted leases. I believe baseball owners got politicians to break the striking players league that way back in the thirties or forties, can't remmber exactly when. In the end capital always falls back on corruption and force if the other guy doesn't "freely" agree to their terms. Capitalist myths 1001. Places like Vancouver's old Pacific Coloseum could be possibilities, or neglected markets like Milwaukee, Seattle or Hamilton, maybe through the "new" WHA if it ever gets off the ground. Problem would remain the same though, too high costs for revenues now.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195
|
posted 02 February 2005 12:35 AM
Well, further on the "radical analysis" front, here's a guy who thinks we should nationalize the NHL. quote: While the owners and players have thrown off their gloves, all of the fans have left the building. The NHL has done a lousy job of marketing the sport. They have let the game disintegrate with all of the clutching, grabbing and fighting which leads to low scoring games that are not very exciting for the average sports fan, and make for lousy TV.And now finally folks are getting pissed off at the NHL owners: CBC Poll Faceoff 2004 What do you think has contributed more to escalating player salaries? Spendthrift, win-at-all-costs owners (4780) 54% Assertive players and their agents (3340) 38% Other factors (760) 9% Total Votes: 8880 (for more on the current lockout by the NHL of its players see: CBC Indepth) So what is to be done? Lets look at what sports teams are a success; the Edmonton Eskimos and the Greenbay Packers, two football teams that are community owned. The Packers pay their players in about the same range as the CFL pays its players. And these are not NFL or NHL super salaries, they are a tradesmans wage, which is what athletes should get paid. And those players stay, the teams are solvent, and they have community support. Its a model for all sports teams. But sports is entertainment and when it becomes a consumable commodity, then it loses its relationship to the community. Its time to put the NHL under community control, with the players buying in as part owners, it is time to end the private ownership of the NHL and make it really community based.
[ 02 February 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195
|
posted 09 February 2005 09:32 AM
My first guess was that CFL salaries were in the $100,000 range, but I think I was too generous in my guesstimate.From http://www.combines.com/leagues/cfl.asp quote: CFL League SummaryTeams: 9 Active Roster: 40 Games: 18 American Player Limit: 21 Season Begins: July Minimum Salary: $32,000* Season Ends: November Average Salary: $55,000* *Salary figures in Canadian dollars
[ 09 February 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adam T
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4631
|
posted 17 February 2005 03:55 AM
A few points:1.I don't know if that articles history of the early domination by the NHL is correct. I'm not a huge expert on the history of the early NHL, but I have read a couple books. First, I don't know how many other leagues there were along with the NHL around 1910. By 1915, I believe the only major leagues around were the Pacific Coast Hockey Assoc and the N.H.L (it might have still been the N.H.A then, but it was pretty much the same league). Those two leagues were the major leagues not because of any conspiracy, but because they had the largest stadiums and could pay the most. It shouldn't take a genius to figure out that a town like Kenora isn't going to draw crowds that a city like Montreal can to a hockey game. There was likely also no conspiracy with the CBC. The NHL was the most major league in the biggest markets, and the CBC obviously wanted to be in on that. The PCHA couldn't compete in the end, because outside of Vancouver, the other cities just didn't draw all that well. They had large stadiums (10,000 was around the largest at the time), but they were usually half empty. In the end, the owners of the league, Lester and Frank Patrick made a large amount of money selling off player contracts to the N.H.L. Finally, although they are called the 'original 6', the term is actually a misnomer. I think there were 8 teams in the NHL when it became named that in 1917, and there were as many as 10 teams at any one time. A stadium fire knocked out the Montreal Maroons and the other teams went down in the depression. Other cities to have teams were Ottawa (the Senators), New York (the Americans), Philadelphia, St. Louis and Pittsburth for a season. So, the NHL did a pretty good job at the time of putting teams in most of the major markets on the east coast. It shouldn't be forgotten that until the last few decades most people living in North America lived either in the East or the Mid West. 2.I would also tend to agree with what was said above, that the new stadiums were built to add revenue streams, rather than because of any conspiracy. Here in Vancouver, the Pacific Coloseum exists, but I doubt it could generate the revenues G.M Place does. 3.If the players want to build a new league, the place to do it would be in Europe. I posted this article written by hockey writer Al Strachan in a different section, he comments on the attempts to form a European Super League: http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Columnists/Strachan/2005/02/13/pf-929882.html I'm not an expert on hockey in Europe, but the Europeans should probably be even more bullish than he suggests. 1.If you look at the amount of money European t.v delivers to the elite European soccer leagues, there is a lot of money there. To be sure, most of the largest countries in Europe (France, Spain, U.K) aren't into hockey in a big way, but Germany alone is almost 1/3 the size of the U.S and could certainly provide a t.v contract much bigger than the C.B.C does for the N.H.L. When you add in the wealthy parts of Russia, Scandanavia and the Central European countries, you have a population that is probably equal to Canada and the parts of the U.S that care about hockey, and probably just as wealthy on average. 2.Because of the larger ice surfaces, many players, especially the Europeans would probably prefer to play in Europe even for less money. Many Canadian and American players would probably prefer it too.
3.One area of cost savings the NHL and the Player's union goes along with is salary caps for rookie players, Europe could easily pick off the elite rookie players. [ 17 February 2005: Message edited by: Adam T ]
From: Richmond B.C | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195
|
posted 28 February 2005 02:07 PM
David Zirin: How the Owners Destroyed the NHL (Counterpunch, Feb. 22, 2005) quote: There's nothing left but the autopsy and it doesn't take William Peterson - or even David Caruso - to decipher who killed the National Hockey League. The season is cancelled. The accusations are flying. But the most deafening sound is silence. There is no outcry in the streets. There has been no Million Hockey Fan March. 77% of Canadians [CANADIANS!] said in a poll they could care less. Substitute shows on ESPN2 are twice as popular as last year's NHL games, which garnered a miserable 0.2 rating, just below the Black Israelites and anything with Tucker Carlson. "It's not a good sign when your replacement programming is outperforming the NHL," said one ESPN executive. The sport - in short - is a corpse.The media - as per usual in a sports/labor conflict - has chosen to heap blame on both sides, saying this is a case of "greedy billionaires vs. greedy millionaires." Now I should confess before writing that I stand with the players in union fights. I would link arms with them even if their demand was for the owner to be body-checked by Scott Stevens at center ice before every home game. All demands are reasonable because it's their sweat that keeps the puck moving. But in this particular case, it is empirically the NHL bosses that have destroyed this beautiful game. The National Hockey League owners have taken a terrifically exciting sport - nothing is better live - with reservoirs of support in the Northern US and Canada, and turned it into something grotesque. The NHL,s journey is like DeNiro's Jake Lamotta in Raging Bull. At the beginning he's rough around the edges, but also magnetic, lean, and lethal. By the end, he's a bulbous, repellent, gassy, clown - a human car wreck. This - in all its ugliness - is the NHL.
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|