Brian Burke slams the NHLPA

[jeffw 1]

http://www.cknw.com/audiovault/audiovault.cfm

Select 2-24-05 10PM About 15 minutes in.

This interview tells what happened behind the scenes in last Saturdays negotiations. very good stuff.

[Chadd 916]

Sorry, I don't think it changes anything. The other parts of the CBA were just as important as the overall cap number, for the owners to refuse to give in on any point shows that they were not really trying to solve the problem.

Not to mention that Burke isn't about to piss off the owners as he is going to want another job in the NHL at some point.

[jeffw 1]

Sorry, I don't think it changes anything. The other parts of the CBA were just as important as the overall cap number, for the owners to refuse to give in on any point shows that they were not really trying to solve the problem.

Not to mention that Burke isn't about to piss off the owners as he is going to want another job in the NHL at some point.

Lemieux weighs in...

Lemieux says players misled him

Sunday, February 27, 2005

By Dave Molinari, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Mario Lemieux believes it's critical that the NHL has a new collective-bargaining agreement in place this spring.

If that doesn't happen, he fears there will be massive damage to the league's economic infrastructure.

And while he realizes that getting a CBA in place soon would not instantly correct all that has gone wrong for the NHL since it was shut down by a lockout Sept. 15, Lemieux feels it would help the business regain its equilibrium. And could assure that the pool of money available to NHL players and owners still will be large enough to be worth sharing.

"The players really have to understand that the ability to maximize revenues next year is dependent on reaching an agreement as soon as possible," said Lemieux, the Penguins' primary owner. "Hopefully, they understand that, so we can go out and have our marketing plan and season-tickets [drive] and sell our sponsorships. Have the [June entry] draft, and all the things that need to be in place to maximize revenue.

"The longer we wait, the more challenging it's going to be for us to generate enough revenues. At the end of the day, you can only afford to pay the players so much. The longer we wait, the smaller the pie's going to be and the less there's going to be for the players."

Officials of the league and the NHL Players' Association have not met since last Saturday, when talks in New York sputtered and the cancellation of the 2004-05 season three days earlier was reaffirmed.

Lemieux and Phoenix managing partner Wayne Gretzky, two of hockey's most-respected figures, were invited to participate in that session by the NHLPA. They accepted, in the belief that the union planned to submit a new CBA offer, with a salary cap of $45 million as its centerpiece.

"The only way that Wayne and I would have gotten involved is because we believed there was a new proposal coming from the Players' Association," Lemieux said. "We were told by some of the players we were talking to that there would be a new proposal on the table at the $45 [million] level."

No such offer was forthcoming, however, and NHLPA officials said later they never intended to make one. They insisted they went to New York only because the league had requested a meeting.

NHL commissioner Gary Bettman subsequently suggested the NHLPA had "set up" the league to inflict a public-relations blow. Lemieux avoided such inflammatory rhetoric, but acknowledged he felt he was misled by the players, even though he hasn't figured out their motivation for doing so.

"It's a mystery to me," he said.

Despite his obvious displeasure with how that session last Saturday unfolded -- the salary cap, widely regarded as the pivotal issue in the CBA talks, never was discussed -- Lemieux said he would not rule out playing a role in future negotiations, if asked.

"When the time is right, I'm sure Wayne and I would look at it very carefully," he said. "If there's a need, we'll do everything we can to bring back the game."

He added, however, that he is "not sure" what he and Gretzky can contribute to the talks, noting that they "haven't been involved in [the CBA] negotiations."

His primary reason for agreeing to attend the New York meeting, Lemieux said, was to "help bridge the gap" between the NHL's $42.5 million salary cap offer and the $45 million proposal he expected the players to submit.

Even if the NHLPA had made such an offer, however, Lemieux isn't convinced it would have led to an agreement. He can't guarantee league officials would have been open to discussing it.

"I'm not sure they would have been," he said.

Lemieux has spoken out on CBA-related issues only a few times since the lockout began, but, as usual on matters pertaining to hockey, his timing now is impeccable. The NHLPA will have a membership meeting tomorrow and Tuesday in Toronto, and the NHL Board of Governors will convene in New York Tuesday afternoon.

Chances are his views on the importance of working out a settlement in the near future will turn up in more than a few conversations at both places.

"I think a deal has to be reached in a couple of months," Lemieux said. "After that, you start losing sponsorships. People start spending money elsewhere. Season-ticket [holders], as well. People find other things to do."

While Lemieux and Gretzky are held in high regard by people on both sides of this dispute because of their accomplishments as players, neither is impartial in this dispute. Both are part of management, and Lemieux said, "we support the owners 100 percent.

"I've been on both sides, and I see the economics of the game," he said. "There's only so much money we can afford [to put] toward player compensation. I don't think the players realize that aspect, at this point. Hopefully, they come around and understand the economics of the game better.

"I know that a few of them do, but most of them haven't been involved throughout this process. Most of the guys have been playing in Europe and not paying much attention to the negotiations and what's happening here. I think it really hurt the players, in that regard, [as far as] being fully informed."

Lemieux praised Bettman and his No. 2 man, Bill Daly, for doing "a tremendous job throughout this process of trying to make a fair deal," but his frustration that the lockout hasn't been resolved percolates not far below the surface.

And while he can't offer a quick formula for working out a compromise, Lemieux suggests that investing a little more time and energy in the process might go a long way toward making an agreement come together.

"[The key is] just to be able to get in a room with the right people and stay there until they get a deal done," he said. "That should have been done months ago but, obviously, it didn't happen."

[jeffw 1]

Its so funny....If this situation occured 10 years ago, Lemiuex would be dead against any sort of cap.

Agreed. I've heard quotes from Patrick Roy, Adam Oates and other retired players saying that players are overpaid and that they should accept the league's terms.

They'd be singing a different tune if they weren't retired. :lol:

[MDE3 0]

Its so funny....If this situation occured 10 years ago, Lemiuex would be dead against any sort of cap.

You may be right, although that doesn't necessarily mean that he would have been...........Have you got any documentation from his position during the last lockout?

[Chadd 916]

I don't get it. They were upset that no new offer was made, despite the fact the NHLPA was attempting to negotiate a middle ground between the last proposals each side put forth. Not to mention the players are their product and their constant attempts to make them look bad are just going to hurt the owners in the end.

[Sniper#39 0]

Not to mention the players are their product and their constant attempts to make them look bad are just going to hurt the owners in the end.

I don't see how?

The fan base has already made their opinions/decisions on this whole mess.

And the higher percentage, while it may be portrayed as "sides with the owners" I think (my own humble opinion) are just agast that the PA refuses to embrace reality.

I think the "product" has a bigger PR/Fan renewal challenge than the Teams do now.....

[Chadd 916]

Not to mention the players are their product and their constant attempts to make them look bad are just going to hurt the owners in the end.

I don't see how?

The fan base has already made their opinions/decisions on this whole mess.

And the higher percentage, while it may be portrayed as "sides with the owners" I think (my own humble opinion) are just agast that the PA refuses to embrace reality.

I think the "product" has a bigger PR/Fan renewal challenge than the Teams do now.....

If the fans have a problem with the players, what makes you think they will come back and support the players? That would be a problem for the owners if they ever sign a new CBA.

I'm sorry but the people around here who mouth off about the players being stupid and greedy are the same people that bitch if they actually have to pay anything for their benefits at work or complain if they didn't get a big enough raise. Not a single one of them would accept a 24% cut in their salary like the players offered.

The notion that the players should take whatever they are offered just to get them back on the ice and make us happy is selfish at best. Believe me, I'm plenty selfish and want them back on the ice. I just realize it's their ass and they're putting their money where their (collective) mouth is.

[Sniper#39 0]

No arguments about the people who mouth off Chadd

But......

These people don't make the kind of money being argued about here...

These people (I can pretty safely assume) don't draw upwards of 70+ percent of the revenue as an employee member from their respective employers (I OWN my own business and I don't do that).

The PA has done an incredible job creating the market that existed - no question - good for them.

And I've stated before - I honestly don't think the 24% rollback offer was anything more than a PR move by the union. but they'll have to abide by it now (and more I'm sure).

The dynamics of the NHL changed - for whatever reason - expansion, hothead owners - take your pick.

But even the egomaniac owners will eventually wake up at some point in time - they didn't get to where they are by being stupid for any great length of time.

The money - save for a few markets - doesn't exist anymore. There is no more expansion cash, the TV deals are a far shadow of what they once were - and the fans - again save for a few select markets - are at their limit as far as what they are willing to pay to watch hockey.

I just don't see how this gets any better down the road for the players...

[Chadd 916]

No arguments about the people who mouth off Chadd

But......

These people don't make the kind of money being argued about here...

These people (I can pretty safely assume) don't draw upwards of 70+ percent of the revenue as an employee member from their respective employers (I OWN my own business and I don't do that).

The PA has done an incredible job creating the market that existed - no question - good for them.

And I've stated before - I honestly don't think the 24% rollback offer was anything more than a PR move by the union. but they'll have to abide by it now (and more I'm sure).

The dynamics of the NHL changed - for whatever reason - expansion, hothead owners - take your pick.

But even the egomaniac owners will eventually wake up at some point in time - they didn't get to where they are by being stupid for any great length of time.

The money - save for a few markets - doesn't exist anymore. There is no more expansion cash, the TV deals are a far shadow of what they once were - and the fans - again save for a few select markets - are at their limit as far as what they are willing to pay to watch hockey.

I just don't see how this gets any better down the road for the players...

First of all, just because they make more money than you or I it doesn't mean they should just willingly give up whatever another person deems sufficient. Professional sports is unlike any other business, so trying to compare it to yours is entirely irrelevant. Unless of course you own an NBA or MLB team.

There are two main problems with the NHL ownership. The first is the disparity between the large and small markets. Small markets do not have the financial resources to pay players as much as markets like Toronto and New York. The other is the way teams operate. Some teams are operated in a manner that shows a loss on paper, while others need to turn a profit to stay in business. The Rangers are a tax write off for Cablevision, the owners don't want to make money.

Without some type of revenue sharing, the NHL will begin to lose teams. They will continue to lose teams until they realize that even mid-sized markets can't compete with the largest markets.

As for the 70% number, bear in mind that most teams who own the building as well as the team don't report luxury suite revenue or many of the other "secondary income" sources. I do not believe that it is 70% of the overall league income.

[Jim Bob 0]

The fans will support the names on the front of the jerseys more than they will support the names on the backs of the jerseys.

And people will stay away not because the owners have made the players out to be the bad guys in this, but because they are ticked off that they lost out on a year of NHL hockey because these two sides couldn't figure out a way to equitably split up a $2 billion industry.

Is Burke an ownership mouthpiece?

Sure.

But it's not like the NHLPA doesn't have their mouthpieces in people like Glenn Healy, Larry Brooks, and plenty of others.

Personally, I hope the NHL and the NHLPA keep the stare down going. And I hope at the end of this they've whittled the NHL into next to nothing and neither side ever makes the same type of money that they've made in the past off the backs of hockey fans.

[Sniper#39 0]

First of all, just because they make more money than you or I it doesn't mean they should just willingly give up whatever another person deems sufficient.

If memory serves - the PA offered the 24% rollback - which in turn was accepted.

I don't recall the league ever stating thet wanted to rollback salaries - just cap the gross dollars spent. I'm sure someone will prove otherwise - but I don't remember the league stating they wanted a rollback.

It's neither here nor there anyway - whether I'm wrong or Chadd's right, the fact is there isn't any NHL this year - and right now there are more people who frown on the PA than the league because of it.

Better "Pre-Lockout" lobbying? perhaps.

Regardless of the "business of sport" the fact remains - the most successful leagues have control (caps). everybody still makes outrageous dollars with relation to the majority of the populus. Revenue sharing exists yes - but - use the NFL example....

Each team gets what - $110 million on TV revenue this year?

I'd be willing to share revenue as an owner if the stream became a river too...

Right now it's barely a trickle...

And if revenue sharing is the answer - and we take the $200+ million loss (for example - thats a different discussion) that the league claims it had - are we expected to believe that revenue sharing would offset that?

I'm not attacking anyone here Chadd - I just really need someone to explain to me what EVERYONE else seems to be missing in this picture...

[Chadd 916]

The fans will support the names on the front of the jerseys more than they will support the names on the backs of the jerseys.

That only works in the larger or more traditional markets that didn't have problems with the old system.

I don't recall the league ever stating thet wanted to rollback salaries - just cap the gross dollars spent. I'm sure someone will prove otherwise - but I don't remember the league  stating they wanted a rollback.

The NHLPA offered the 24% reduction as a replacement for a hard cap. That brings me to....

Regardless of the "business of sport" the fact remains - the most successful leagues have control (caps). everybody still makes outrageous dollars with relation to the majority of the populus. Revenue sharing exists yes - but - use the NFL example....

No other top level sports league has a cap as restrictive as what the NHL proposed. No exceptions, no revenue sharing, no arbitration rights and you do not become an unrestricted free agent until 30. The NFL, for example, has unrestricted free agency at age 24.

And if revenue sharing is the answer - and we take the $200+ million loss (for example - thats a different discussion) that the league claims it had - are we expected to believe that revenue sharing would offset that?

The NHL owners want to have a CBA that enables them to turn a profit no matter how badly the team is mismanaged. Is it any surprise that Bill Wirtz (chicago) and Jeremy Jacobs (boston) are leading the charge on this? A reasonable amount of revenue sharing based on a % of the home gate would be easy to manage and resolve most of the problems. Keep in mind, nothing will help a situation like Carolina and some tems (Rangers) operate at a loss as part of a larger business plan for the owner.

I'm not attacking anyone here Chadd - I just really need someone to explain to me what EVERYONE else seems to be missing in this picture...

I enjoy debating issues like this. Both sides have good points, I just can't back the owners in this one.