Follow me on twitter - Follow @DyHrdMET
- where I'm venting some frustration and giving some creative suggestions about the potential NHL Lockout in 140 characters or less. I try to keep the language G-rated.
Leave a comment or drop me a line at DyHrdMET [at] gmail [dot] com. Your comments will fall into a moderation queue.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Negotiation
Have I mentioned lately, or at all, that the fact that the NHL owners and NHLPA dragged through both the 2011-2012 season and summer of 2012 in this negotiation to the point where they're regrouping with nothing a week before the CBA expires is a total insult to the fans (i.e. paying customers)?
I don't know if one side is more to blame for the schedule of negotiations over the past year than the other (assuming there's blame for both side on that front). But the fact that they'll even let it get down this close, and I'd heard a while back that they'd let this drag into the season and really step it up once the WinterShowcase Classic is in jeopardy, is just insulting to us fans, who are there for the Entire 6 month season, and even more.
In my 20 of so years of being a passionate sports fan, I've lived through (and maybe I don't remember every one of these)
In 4 major sports leagues in US/Canada, that's 1 full season lost, 3 seasons that were approximately half lost, 1 more that started a few weeks late, 1 season that was cut short with no championship, 1 that came very close to having something significant chopped off (preseason doesn't count), and 1 with replacements.
And it always make things cost more money for us (either in ticket prices, parking, concessions, souvenirs, online media, or paying for TV rights from our cable TV bills. When do we go on strike and stop showing up? Well, I don't think that'll happen.
And who loses the most if there's a work stoppage? Those that work for these teams. Those that work the individual game-events that have been and will be cancelled. Ushers, security, ticket takers, office staff, ticket sales, cooks, maintenance crew, TV production crews, vendors, and many more. We just lose the entertainment value, both live and on TV/radio/internet. Those people lose jobs.
Settle already. Split the shit 50/50, and keep it that way. If you don't like that, get out and let someone else in.
Leave a comment or drop me a line at DyHrdMET [at] gmail [dot] com. Your comments will fall into a moderation queue.
I don't know if one side is more to blame for the schedule of negotiations over the past year than the other (assuming there's blame for both side on that front). But the fact that they'll even let it get down this close, and I'd heard a while back that they'd let this drag into the season and really step it up once the Winter
In my 20 of so years of being a passionate sports fan, I've lived through (and maybe I don't remember every one of these)
- an MLB season cut short in 1994 with no World Series
- an NHL season that had the first half cut out that same fall and into the winter (1994-95)
- an MLB season that started a little late and had replacement players ready to go (1995)
- an NBA season that didn't start until January (1997-98)
- an entire NHL season lost in 2004-05
- an NFL season that was thought to be in jeopardy, last year, and turned out to only miss 1 preseason game and a small part of training camp
- an NBA season that didn't start until the Christmas Day showcase (2011)
- an NFL season going on with replacement officials (ongoing in 2012)
In 4 major sports leagues in US/Canada, that's 1 full season lost, 3 seasons that were approximately half lost, 1 more that started a few weeks late, 1 season that was cut short with no championship, 1 that came very close to having something significant chopped off (preseason doesn't count), and 1 with replacements.
And it always make things cost more money for us (either in ticket prices, parking, concessions, souvenirs, online media, or paying for TV rights from our cable TV bills. When do we go on strike and stop showing up? Well, I don't think that'll happen.
And who loses the most if there's a work stoppage? Those that work for these teams. Those that work the individual game-events that have been and will be cancelled. Ushers, security, ticket takers, office staff, ticket sales, cooks, maintenance crew, TV production crews, vendors, and many more. We just lose the entertainment value, both live and on TV/radio/internet. Those people lose jobs.
Settle already. Split the shit 50/50, and keep it that way. If you don't like that, get out and let someone else in.
Leave a comment or drop me a line at DyHrdMET [at] gmail [dot] com. Your comments will fall into a moderation queue.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
What purpose do NHL Owners serve?
This is just another post of me, a fan and Devils season ticket holder, bitching about the threat of another lockout (the 3rd in the time that I've been an NHL fan, and the 3rd in the time that Gary Bettman has been NHL Commissioner).
I was taking a timeout from watching tennis on Friday, reading some tweets coming across the wire about the breakdown of talks between the NHL Owners association and the NHLPA. And I started to get a bit angry. I had to suppress that anger a bit, since I was out at the USTA Tennis Center and it wasn't the time. But I did have one thought. Maybe I'm off-base here, but I tweeted this on Friday...
Let me explain my thinking. The biggest thing that I've been hearing in regards to the CBA negotiations is the percentage of revenue split between the owners and players. I keep saying that it should be fixed at 50/50, because without one side, the other side can't really exist. Then in some of my re-channeled frustration, I started thinking, "what would happen if the owners weren't there? could there still be a league?" We know that if the players aren't playing in the NHL, then there is no league. But what if there were no owners? What purpose do they actually serve here?
Someone, probably a combination of the league and its 30 owners, gets revenue from ticket sales, name/logo licensing (jerseys, t-shirts, nick nacks, etc), advertising, and media (mostly television, but there's probably some money from radio and maybe other forms of media). Shouldn't that be enough to pay off the players and run the hockey operations (such as team expenses, arena lease, scouting, office staff, etc.)? I don't know what the total revenue for the league is, nor do I know what the average team costs would be. But doesn't it seem like the revenue should cover the other costs?
Let me think through this radical idea. What if the league were responsible for running all 30 teams (maybe with an oversight committee with representatives from all 30 clubs/markets) that pays salaries to everybody and collects all the revenue. Since you don't have 30 owners funding the league, salaries can't get absurdly high because a) the money really isn't there to pay the players at the absurdly high salaries, and b) because you aren't going to have the league competing with anyone over salaries (at least not until the KHL gets involved) like you have with teams going after a free agent. Some may call that "collusion". Maybe it violates some Anti-trust clause. I'm not a lawyer, so I won't try to argue those points. It's just an idea. Ugh, but then you have 1 league instead of 30 teams trying to grab money from the players (and fans), and it doesn't eliminate the fundamental dispute that we have.
Let me go back to my original question. What if there were no owners? The revenue streams would fund the 30 teams (I could go on about there being too many teams, but that's a whole other post) and league's operations, and that includes players' salaries, as they do today (right?). Then why is there then a need to pay off anyone else (such as an owner investing additional funds in order to try to get a return on that investment)? Especially a collection of people who want over half of the league's revenue. It's an investment. Pay everyone off and hope you make money.
Now, this doesn't in any way solve any of the other issues such as what is revenue, the salary cap, how long before you can be a free agent, etc. Maybe I didn't solve anything here. But I'm clearly not too happy with the NHL's owners these days.
Leave a comment or drop me a line at DyHrdMET [at] gmail [dot] com. Your comments will fall into a moderation queue.
I was taking a timeout from watching tennis on Friday, reading some tweets coming across the wire about the breakdown of talks between the NHL Owners association and the NHLPA. And I started to get a bit angry. I had to suppress that anger a bit, since I was out at the USTA Tennis Center and it wasn't the time. But I did have one thought. Maybe I'm off-base here, but I tweeted this on Friday...
what's the purpose of a
— Jason Bornstein (@DyHrdMET) September 1, 2012@nhl team owner? fans, ads, and tv fund the league, right?#NHLLockout
Let me explain my thinking. The biggest thing that I've been hearing in regards to the CBA negotiations is the percentage of revenue split between the owners and players. I keep saying that it should be fixed at 50/50, because without one side, the other side can't really exist. Then in some of my re-channeled frustration, I started thinking, "what would happen if the owners weren't there? could there still be a league?" We know that if the players aren't playing in the NHL, then there is no league. But what if there were no owners? What purpose do they actually serve here?
Someone, probably a combination of the league and its 30 owners, gets revenue from ticket sales, name/logo licensing (jerseys, t-shirts, nick nacks, etc), advertising, and media (mostly television, but there's probably some money from radio and maybe other forms of media). Shouldn't that be enough to pay off the players and run the hockey operations (such as team expenses, arena lease, scouting, office staff, etc.)? I don't know what the total revenue for the league is, nor do I know what the average team costs would be. But doesn't it seem like the revenue should cover the other costs?
Let me think through this radical idea. What if the league were responsible for running all 30 teams (maybe with an oversight committee with representatives from all 30 clubs/markets) that pays salaries to everybody and collects all the revenue. Since you don't have 30 owners funding the league, salaries can't get absurdly high because a) the money really isn't there to pay the players at the absurdly high salaries, and b) because you aren't going to have the league competing with anyone over salaries (at least not until the KHL gets involved) like you have with teams going after a free agent. Some may call that "collusion". Maybe it violates some Anti-trust clause. I'm not a lawyer, so I won't try to argue those points. It's just an idea. Ugh, but then you have 1 league instead of 30 teams trying to grab money from the players (and fans), and it doesn't eliminate the fundamental dispute that we have.
Let me go back to my original question. What if there were no owners? The revenue streams would fund the 30 teams (I could go on about there being too many teams, but that's a whole other post) and league's operations, and that includes players' salaries, as they do today (right?). Then why is there then a need to pay off anyone else (such as an owner investing additional funds in order to try to get a return on that investment)? Especially a collection of people who want over half of the league's revenue. It's an investment. Pay everyone off and hope you make money.
Now, this doesn't in any way solve any of the other issues such as what is revenue, the salary cap, how long before you can be a free agent, etc. Maybe I didn't solve anything here. But I'm clearly not too happy with the NHL's owners these days.
Leave a comment or drop me a line at DyHrdMET [at] gmail [dot] com. Your comments will fall into a moderation queue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)