Shawn Gates: Cancelled Winter Classic Is About NHL Spite, Not Pragmatism

go NHL! best league ever!

With a salary cap of 70mm X 32 teams, NHL player payrolls are 2.24B.
The owners proposal is 7% less than 2.24b, or 156MM less than they players on
32 teams combined are getting paid. So, 156mm/32 teams is equal to 4.9mm net
difference for each team... so I don't go with the line that the owners are
being greedy.. if they need an extra 5mm/team to save 4 teams from failure through revenue sharing, then they are saving 80 NHL players jobs.. at the cost of $61,250 per job saved, and that doesn't include coaches, scouts, prospects loste etc... SO...

with roughly 640 regular NHL players, it seem like 540 of them are negotiating against about 80 of them. Typical labor Union. Cannibalize the margin of your Union, so the majority of the Union can live a little better.

I am being overly simplistic? I am wide open to being corrected, becaue I really don't want to believe the reason I'm not watching the NHL is this stupid.

... you do realize to cancel it on dec 9 is not enough notice

selling tickets, selling advertising spots , lining up all the permits, the entertainment

to book all these in advance would be foolish, and to cancel them on december 9th and have to return how many fans money and lose out on all the security deposits is retarded

thats why they had the opt out date today they knew they would need all that time to properly plan it

I think that if the don't play hockey this entire year and it goes into next season as well, then the NHL will ultimately lose 4-6 teams...
Fans are already saying that they don't give a poop...if this drags out another year, even the die hard fans will start not to care about these greedy a-holes...

There is absolutely no reason why they need to have work stoppages every time the CBA comes up...its ridiculous.
Most unions start to meet before the current contract is expired, yet these clowns wait until the last minute...
If the CBA expires Sept15...they should start talking by June1...gives them 3.5months to work this poop out...

It doesn't matter whether or not they salvage a season or lose a season or two in hopes that long-term solutions will be found.

When the next CBA expires, almost all of the players - and the PA negotiating team at that time - will have no experience of this lock-out.

Certainly a large percentage of owners will be new in 5/7/10 years, and Bettman would probably be gone, meaning a new negotiating team for the owners.

The new owners would probably be from the remaining struggling teams - owners in the successful markets would not turn over as fast as those from struggling markets - and would be more militant in trying to win and crush the union.

And short of sharing all revenues (which won't happen) and assuring that every franchise is profitable (taking the difference away from the players), the league would want a complete restructuring every time out.

It doesn't matter whether or not they salvage a season or lose a season or two in hopes that long-term solutions will be found.

When the next CBA expires, almost all of the players - and the PA negotiating team at that time - will have no experience of this lock-out.


- StLBravesFan

guys like luongo, kovalchuk and so on have contracts well eclipsing what ever the new cba will be

but theres still nothing wrong with that right nhlpa?

... you do realize to cancel it on dec 9 is not enough notice

selling tickets, selling advertising spots , lining up all the permits, the entertainment

to book all these in advance would be foolish, and to cancel them on december 9th and have to return how many fans money and lose out on all the security deposits is retarded

thats why they had the opt out date today they knew they would need all that time to properly plan it
- nightmare3020

Tickets, advertising already in place. Cancellations were already a part of the game whether now or a month from now. I understand what you're saying, but the game was essentially sold-out already. Advertising was likely in the same boat, at least for the major spots. As for the fans, I'm not convinced those needs ranked very high...

With a salary cap of 70mm X 32 teams, NHL player payrolls are 2.24B.
The owners proposal is 7% less than 2.24b, or 156MM less than they players on
32 teams combined are getting paid. So, 156mm/32 teams is equal to 4.9mm net
difference for each team... so I don't go with the line that the owners are
being greedy.. if they need an extra 5mm/team to save 4 teams from failure through revenue sharing, then they are saving 80 NHL players jobs.. at the cost of $61,250 per job saved, and that doesn't include coaches, scouts, prospects loste etc... SO...

with roughly 640 regular NHL players, it seem like 540 of them are negotiating against about 80 of them. Typical labor Union. Cannibalize the margin of your Union, so the majority of the Union can live a little better.

I am being overly simplistic? I am wide open to being corrected, becaue I really don't want to believe the reason I'm not watching the NHL is this stupid.
- DirkGraham

I can't argue with alot of what you're saying! My point isn't around the core economics of the CBA, per se, but the optics of what the league is trying to present at times like this. They'll argue timelines and payment schedules, and I don't think that lines up with the real reasons at play.

And I hope no one mistakes a rant against the owners as pining for the players, as I think both parties shoulder a great deal of responsibility. In this particular situation, however, it was the league who had the power to handle it differently, but chose to take the easy way...

guys like luongo, kovalchuk and so on have contracts well eclipsing what ever the new cba will be

but theres still nothing wrong with that right nhlpa?
- nightmare3020

What is wrong with it? The owners agreed to those contracts.

No doubt or argument that they were they stupid contracts. But when you are looking for a new job, if you have multiple offers, don't you take the best one?

"And I hope no one mistakes a rant against the owners as pining for the players, as I think both parties shoulder a great deal of responsibility. In this particular situation, however, it was the league who had the power to handle it differently, but chose to take the easy way... "


Not at all dude. I was ranting, just as you were. No worries. We all want the same thing.

Today's deadline included not only the 250k payment, but also guaranteed that the league would reimburse The University of Michigan for any additional out of pocket costs in the event the game is cancelled. This would be another item that the PA could hold over the owners to improve their bargaining position in the future.

Today's deadline included not only the 250k payment, but also guaranteed that the league would reimburse The University of Michigan for any additional out of pocket costs in the event the game is cancelled. This would be another item that the PA could hold over the owners to improve their bargaining position in the future.
- Ron C.

I'm unaware of any of that, but know that regardless of when they cancelled the league was out $100,000. But in the context of the $200,000,000 slush fund they got from the Flyers/NBC on the TV deal, it's chump change. A convenient argument for the league to make that holds no real water for me...

"And I hope no one mistakes a rant against the owners as pining for the players, as I think both parties shoulder a great deal of responsibility. In this particular situation, however, it was the league who had the power to handle it differently, but chose to take the easy way... "


Not at all dude. I was ranting, just as you were. No worries. We all want the same thing.
- DirkGraham

I hear ya! The whole thing's a real pain in the rear with no winners in the grand scheme of things...

Shawn Gates: Cancelled Winter Classic Is About NHL Spite, Not Pragmatism
- shawn_gates

Spite?

Hardly.

How about the pragmatism of letting people who purchased tickets, make travel plans, booked hotels, etc..have a chance to get their cash back (or most of it, even if it is just credit vouchers).

How about the pragmatism of all other expenses that the lead-up publicity, for the NHL and their partners, such as HBO 24X7, not being able to execute?

How about the pragmatism to do something to force the players to come to the table and even talk about a deal, let alone actually make one?

I suggest there is only spite in this blog, and zero pragmatism.

Oh, btw, the NHL might be getting $200M for not playing games on NBC, but they have already stated/agreed to give NBC 1 free year of broadcasts added on to the end of the deal.

I also believe that the logistics of putting together the Winter Classic forced the league to cancel at this early of a date. Not to mention that making the payments and then not being able to play would just be a waste of money (if no agreement is reached this year).
However, I firmly believe the league went ahead with the cancelation to keep the PA from holding this over the league's head. Call it a bargaining chip or whatever you will. The league is obviously willing to forego the Classic to get a workable agreement and the PA now knows it.
With November games being shelved and the Classic being canceled, the PA now has little if any to bargain with. Nobody *wins* in this scenario but you have to admit, it underscores how serious the league is about these negotiations.
I just wish the league would have gone ahead and brought in replacement players. Call it a "league reboot". I think not knowing who was going to be on which team would have made for a really exciting season. Not to mention the fact that the guys who DID suit up would obviously be out there for the right reasons and not just for the big paycheck.
I think there are plenty enough 2nd-tier younger players and older guys who haven't been signed in a few years (because of stupid $100 million contacts) out there to make for some pretty exciting hockey. All the teams would be in the same predicament so nobody would have an advantage. The greedy-arse PA would be broken, people would be playing hockey in my teams sweater and in a few seasons, nobody would know the difference.
Support the sweater, not the greedy players who are holding out and too busy playing hockey in Europe (or wherever). Bring on the replacement players.

Spite?

Hardly.

How about the pragmatism of letting people who purchased tickets, make travel plans, booked hotels, etc..have a chance to get their cash back (or most of it, even if it is just credit vouchers).

How about the pragmatism of all other expenses that the lead-up publicity, for the NHL and their partners, such as HBO 24X7, not being able to execute?

How about the pragmatism to do something to force the players to come to the table and even talk about a deal, let alone actually make one?

I suggest there is only spite in this blog, and zero pragmatism.

Oh, btw, the NHL might be getting $200M for not playing games on NBC, but they have already stated/agreed to give NBC 1 free year of broadcasts added on to the end of the deal.
- JDJ

In terms of us fans, I think everyone is pretty aware that it's going to be canceled and giving a month notice of confirmation gives time to take care of those issues.

As for 24/7, even if a Winter Classic were to happen I don't think 24/7 does with the league starting in late November as there's no time to build content. I see your point, but I don't think it holds regardless of whether the event were cancelled now or in a month.

As for the player arguement, again I feel that if this is the intent it's cutting off your nose to spite your face. I don't disagree with the move to cancel, but the timing, in my opinion, reflects something different.

As for the $200 mill, it's a glorified loan from the Flyers. They will see money somehow in that final year, it won't be a "freebie". If they were worried about NBC getting their money's worth they'd work a sliding schedule for a partial year once games start, not just hand over $200 mill with no games to be seen...

Just my opinion, and sincerely, no spite on my part! I just don't trust any of these folks on these matters. These were the same owners who promised lowered ticket prices following the last lockout and that went nowhere!!!

Could the NHL have waited a week, yeah probably...and I'm sure they would have if there was any progress or meaningful talks going on. Do I care that the game is cancelled? Not really...because frankly to me it's a regular season game with a gimmick for NBC.

Generally speaking about the lockout, I agree with a previous poster about both sides being ridiculous and they should have started meeting well befor august. Talks should have started January 1, 2012. The new CBA should have a clause that mandates when the Nhl and Nhlpa are required to begin negotiations. Will it do much? No...but it would atleast accelerate the process.

As far as the players are concerned....I wonder what exactly it is they are being told by Fehr? Because financially it does not make sense for them to not work more closely off of the NHL's so called "50/50" proposal. I don't see how rationally they risk the cancellation of the season...which means the players lose 1.8 billion dollars this year...and they are doing this to prevent themselves from losing 1.6 billion spread over the next few years. It doesn't make sense. The player demands aren't about players rights or safety...it's about money...so I don't get how they can't do the math.
I'm not saying the Nhl proposal was great or should not have been countered. I am simply saying the current course means the players will likely lose 1.8 billion this year in salaries and then they have to factor in whatever roll back will be in the final agreed cba......to me losing more to try to protect less is a weak, non sensical strategy.

With a salary cap of 70mm X 32 teams, NHL player payrolls are 2.24B.
The owners proposal is 7% less than 2.24b, or 156MM less than they players on
32 teams combined are getting paid. So, 156mm/32 teams is equal to 4.9mm net
difference for each team... so I don't go with the line that the owners are
being greedy.. if they need an extra 5mm/team to save 4 teams from failure through revenue sharing, then they are saving 80 NHL players jobs.. at the cost of $61,250 per job saved, and that doesn't include coaches, scouts, prospects loste etc... SO...

with roughly 640 regular NHL players, it seem like 540 of them are negotiating against about 80 of them. Typical labor Union. Cannibalize the margin of your Union, so the majority of the Union can live a little better.

I am being overly simplistic? I am wide open to being corrected, becaue I really don't want to believe the reason I'm not watching the NHL is this stupid.
- DirkGraham

Hi Dirk, just want to correct your math and general CBA knowledge on this one.

Firstly, the 'salary cap' is never going to be spent to by all 30 teams (not 32, this isn't the NFL). The upper limit isn't where the revenue cutoff is, it's actually around the middle between the cap floor and ceiling.

Also, the proposal of 50% instead of 57% is NOT a 7% pay cut for the players. It is a 12.3% pay cut.

Also, most of what the league is offering the players seems to only be things that will help the large-market teams turn bigger profits. I still think that at the end of the day, especially given that this lockout is driving away fans from small-market and Southern teams, that even if the NHL sits out the whole year and gets what they want, it will be to the detriment of the very teams they claim their new CBA proposals are trying to help.

Think about it: they want to bring the cap down, which prevents the large-market teams from spending money. They will still spend right to the cap, and still raise ticket prices every year, and will just pocket the extra money. The poorer teams, let's use Nashville as an example, will probably lose some fans due to this lockout, and won't be able to raise their ticket prices nearly as quickly as a Toronto or Philadelphia. The cap will drop, but so will their share of revenues as a percentage of the league's, and their fans will likely not be very happy if they are still only spending to the midpoint between the floor and the cap. So they end up in the same boat as before, losing money or barely breaking even (depending who's doing the accounting).

Now, let's say you're a Coyotes fan. Not only is your fanbase small, but the lockout will probably make it a whole lot smaller. You will have trouble selling tickets, and your revenues are stagnated at pre-lockout levels because you can't raise ticket prices without losing ticket sales. So even though your losses will shrink a little bit for the first year or two by virtue of having the cap floor a little lower, in 5 years your team will be in an even worse position because the big teams have continued to raise ticket prices and increase their revenues while the lockout severely damaged your fanbase in 2012-13 and made it so your own revenues couldn't keep pace.

The short answer to what needs to be done is revenue-sharing. The "it's socialism" and the "the players make too much money" and the "unions are greedy" statements can keep coming, but even if the NHL wins this negotiation eventually, they've still damaged the league for the long run. Guys like Jacobs, Snider, Leipold, etc are acting in their own best interests because they know their fans will hate them for not spending to the cap. All they care about is the profits, not the fate of the small-market teams.

Could the NHL have waited a week, yeah probably...and I'm sure they would have if there was any progress or meaningful talks going on. Do I care that the game is cancelled? Not really...because frankly to me it's a regular season game with a gimmick for NBC.

Generally speaking about the lockout, I agree with a previous poster about both sides being ridiculous and they should have started meeting well befor august. Talks should have started January 1, 2012. The new CBA should have a clause that mandates when the Nhl and Nhlpa are required to begin negotiations. Will it do much? No...but it would atleast accelerate the process.

As far as the players are concerned....I wonder what exactly it is they are being told by Fehr? Because financially it does not make sense for them to not work more closely off of the NHL's so called "50/50" proposal. I don't see how rationally they risk the cancellation of the season...which means the players lose 1.8 billion dollars this year...and they are doing this to prevent themselves from losing 1.6 billion spread over the next few years. It doesn't make sense. The player demands aren't about players rights or safety...it's about money...so I don't get how they can't do the math.
I'm not saying the Nhl proposal was great or should not have been countered. I am simply saying the current course means the players will likely lose 1.8 billion this year in salaries and then they have to factor in whatever roll back will be in the final agreed cba......to me losing more to try to protect less is a weak, non sensical strategy.
- Sens2k5

I think it boils down to, at the sake/probability of being to simplistic, principle. Players accepted a cap last time which is what the owners said they HAD TO HAVE in order for teams to survive (remember: in the context of the arguement, whether they benefitted or not is irrelevant), proceeded to find a variety of ways to circumvent said cap, have a commissioner working for them who, for the past two years, has been walking around gloating about the leagues financial growth (even as recently as the Cup finals), and now the owners are coming back and saying "This system is broken! We're bleeding money!", which given how the owners have allowed for their GM's to work under the cap system, is akin to saying "Save us from ourselves...AGAIN!!!" Nevermind the fact that, in one of the more puzzling moves IMO thus far, you have the owner of a club who landed the two biggest free agents this off season (Weber & Parise) in huge deals, walking out of a session after 15 minutes where a deal was proposed saying we'll accept 50% as long as you honour the contracts you've already negotiated.

Now, note my wording here: Within that context, I can understand the players being miffed.

Now within a BUSINESS context, I would like to understand how the players feel they're entitled to over half the profits of a business, although I can understand concerns around receiving ANY percentage of revenues when you don't trust the business to propoerly define what this is (not saying I buy into either sides HRR definition, just saying I can understand the animosity of you felt someone was cooking the books for lack of a better way to put it)

Now, either of these are, of course, VERY different from the context of real life where, after 16 years of university and a doctoral degree, I make only a insignificant fraction of what a first year, minimum salary player. In THIS context, the players can pound pavement for all I care!

Different contexts define different startpoints and lead you to different conclusions. Two people discussing it from different contexts will, I believe, find it hard to understand where the other is coming from...

Is there not an option where they get an arbitrator to listen to both sides and make a final ruling?
Or could the owners not just say (frank) you NHLPA, and have all the players currently playing in the AHL/ECHL fill out the NHL rosters and start the season? Almost with scab/replacement players...
I am just so over this...2 lockouts in less than 10years...
There is no excuse either side can give to make me want to support either right now...

Is there not an option where they get an arbitrator to listen to both sides and make a final ruling?
Or could the owners not just say (frank) you NHLPA, and have all the players currently playing in the AHL/ECHL fill out the NHL rosters and start the season? Almost with scab/replacement players...
I am just so over this...2 lockouts in less than 10years...
There is no excuse either side can give to make me want to support either right now...
- BoBBeR56

I think most people would agree with not supporting either. Even using my own example, understanding why the players are miffed doesn't have to mean condoning it.

As for the scab option, though, it wouldn't fly IMO. PR disaster in so many ways...

Is there not an option where they get an arbitrator to listen to both sides and make a final ruling?
Or could the owners not just say (frank) you NHLPA, and have all the players currently playing in the AHL/ECHL fill out the NHL rosters and start the season? Almost with scab/replacement players...
I am just so over this...2 lockouts in less than 10years...
There is no excuse either side can give to make me want to support either right now...
- BoBBeR56

The owners won't do that because the first thing an arbitrator will tell them is that they have to fully honour existing contracts, which throws out the window their biggest goal in all this, which is to scale back all the existing contracts to fit them under the new, lower cap they are demanding.

I think most people would agree with not supporting either. Even using my own example, understanding why the players are miffed doesn't have to mean condoning it.

As for the scab option, though, it wouldn't fly IMO. PR disaster in so many ways...
- shawn_gates

I wish I could understand why people keep demanding the use of replacement players. If you really want to see AHL-level players, go watch the AHL and pay $20 instead of $100 for your ticket. Spend the other $80 on beer until you are drunk enough that you can't tell the difference between the Marlies logo and the Maple Leaf logo and you're set!

Hi Dirk, just want to correct your math and general CBA knowledge on this one.

Firstly, the 'salary cap' is never going to be spent to by all 30 teams (not 32, this isn't the NFL). The upper limit isn't where the revenue cutoff is, it's actually around the middle between the cap floor and ceiling.

Also, the proposal of 50% instead of 57% is NOT a 7% pay cut for the players. It is a 12.3% pay cut.

Also, most of what the league is offering the players seems to only be things that will help the large-market teams turn bigger profits. I still think that at the end of the day, especially given that this lockout is driving away fans from small-market and Southern teams, that even if the NHL sits out the whole year and gets what they want, it will be to the detriment of the very teams they claim their new CBA proposals are trying to help.

Think about it: they want to bring the cap down, which prevents the large-market teams from spending money. They will still spend right to the cap, and still raise ticket prices every year, and will just pocket the extra money. The poorer teams, let's use Nashville as an example, will probably lose some fans due to this lockout, and won't be able to raise their ticket prices nearly as quickly as a Toronto or Philadelphia. The cap will drop, but so will their share of revenues as a percentage of the league's, and their fans will likely not be very happy if they are still only spending to the midpoint between the floor and the cap. So they end up in the same boat as before, losing money or barely breaking even (depending who's doing the accounting).

Now, let's say you're a Coyotes fan. Not only is your fanbase small, but the lockout will probably make it a whole lot smaller. You will have trouble selling tickets, and your revenues are stagnated at pre-lockout levels because you can't raise ticket prices without losing ticket sales. So even though your losses will shrink a little bit for the first year or two by virtue of having the cap floor a little lower, in 5 years your team will be in an even worse position because the big teams have continued to raise ticket prices and increase their revenues while the lockout severely damaged your fanbase in 2012-13 and made it so your own revenues couldn't keep pace.

The short answer to what needs to be done is revenue-sharing. The "it's socialism" and the "the players make too much money" and the "unions are greedy" statements can keep coming, but even if the NHL wins this negotiation eventually, they've still damaged the league for the long run. Guys like Jacobs, Snider, Leipold, etc are acting in their own best interests because they know their fans will hate them for not spending to the cap. All they care about is the profits, not the fate of the small-market teams.
- saul91

I was going to reply the same thing. There are 30 teams in the NHL. And players salaries this upcoming Season are at 1.95B, according to Bob McKenzie.