Re: Hockey's CBA

"Rosario Leone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I am sorry if I am rehashing the same old arguments here, but I keep
> hearing about this subject and I get frustrated and so I would like to
> vent.
>
> First off I want to say that I come down squarely on the side of the
> players. I really don?t understand the reasoning on the other side of
> this issue. I mean, I know that the game is in trouble economically, but
> don?t we have to consider why? The people who support the owner?s
> position seem to want to skirt over the issue by saying the current CBA
> must be bad because the game is in trouble, but I think that is very
> superficial.
>
> As far as I know there is nothing in the current CBA that literally
> dictates what player?s salaries are. Nothing that says that any owner
> has to spend a dime more than they make. That is determined by the
> owner?s decisons. So why is this bad for the owners? Doesn?t anyone else
> think that it?s ridiculous to set the market and then get mad at the
> players for the market you set? And am I wrong in thinking that the same
> people who complain about issues of personal responsibility when the
> welfare argument is raised are arguing in favor of the owners? Don?t
> they have to take responsibility for running their own organizations so
> poorly? Aren?t we discounting the creativity involved in competing with
> teams that have more resources? I mean, it just seems ludicrous to me
> that Ottawa threatens to declare bankruptcy while their in first place
> in their conference. So they spend what, half as much as the Rangers?
> They reach first place, but how do they know that they couldn?t do the
> same for a third as much or a quarter? The Sens couldn?t have ejected
> Radek Bonk or Alfredson, given his ice time to Spezza and perhaps been
> just as good? Didn?t they lose Yashin without missing a step?

Rookie salaries are capped, but that doesn't include very simple and
achievable 'bonus' clauses.  (Something along the lines of getting $10K/game
for lacing up your own skates.)


>
> In my mind, what is happening in baseball is a beautiful thing. People
> are complaining about how many deals or prospective deals are motivated
> by economics, but to me it?s about owners finally taking responsibility
> for their team?s finances and realizing they can?t whine about players
> making too much money anymore.
>
> This posting was spurred in part by an editorial I heard on the radio.
> The guy basically said that hockey had better learn from football how to
> do a CBA.  He said that football is more popular because of their CBA
> and so hockey should follow suit. I would hate if that happened. He said
> that anyone can contend any given year in football. But doesn?t hockey
> have enough parity? Isn?t that half the problem with the game? I think
> there are reasons football is more popular than hockey that I won?t go
> into here because I went on long enough already. Hope I didn?t bore
> anyone to death?

There are a few problems with hockey.

1.  Hockey players believe that they should be paid as baseball players,
even though the money isn't even close to being there.  Maybe the numbers
have changed a bit, but the last time I looked, a MLB team's share of the
league contract for national broadcast rights (Game of the week/All-Star
game/playoffs) was around $30 million per season.  That money, in the hands
of a MLB owner, could almost go out buy any 2 superstar players.  On the
other hand, an NHL team gets $4 million/year from its US TV contract...which
means that you can't even take 1 of the players that are paid in the top 75.
(The Hockey News' Bucks and Pucks issue lists 75 players that are earning,
as a base salary, more than $4 million US/season.)

2. The NFL and NBA both have CBAs that include salary caps, which are set as
percentages of specified league revenues.  This, for those leagues, is good,
but for NHL, which is still primarily a gate driven sport, is much more
difficult to regulate, and could result in an even lower cap than what the
league is now proposing.  To go along with the team total cap, the NBA also
has caps on what individual players can earn.

I personally leave that the new CBA needs to have a hard floor for team
salaries, and a soft cap, that QUICKLY escalates.  Just to throw out some
numbers, the league could have a floor of $25 million (what each team needs
to spend), and a cap of $35 million.  For every dollar over the cap up to
$36 million, the penalty is a dollar.  From $36 - $37 million, it's $2 for
each dollar.  (So, if your salary total is $37 million, you would have to
pay $37 million + $1 million + $2 million, or $40 million.)  For every
dollar over $37 million, it's $5 per dollar.

The owners, for the most part, have deluded themselves into thinking how
good things have been over the past decade, because there has been a
relatively steady flow of expansion fees coming in.  That's over and done
with.  How many cities are left that would take an expansion team?  And how
many teams are teetering on the edge?

Neither side is blameless...far from it.  There is more than enough blame to
go around.  But I will never forget how there was such an uproar in Winnipeg
when Dale Hawerchuk signed a 'huge' contract after his best season, 130
points, finishing 3rd in scoring behind some guys named Kurri and Gretzky.
His huge contract?  7 years, totalling about $4.5 million.  It averages out
to $600K per season...which is now a third of what your 'average' salary is.


      Daryl Turner