Skip to content

SportsBiz: Why are we on the brink of another lockout?

Sep 13, 2012, 9:18 PM EDT

Why are the NHL owners asking for a bigger share of the revenues pie compared to the old CBA? With a lockout looming, TSN legal analyst Eric Macramalla went on CNBC’s SportsBiz to breakdown the situation.

You can view that below:

This video is no longer available. Click here to watch more NBC Sports videos!

Related:

PHT Extra: How long will the lockout last?

Crosby: Players don’t have incentive to accept NHL proposal

Bettman feels “terrible” about impending lockout, but owners have their reasons

With lockout looming, Fehr lays out union’s position

  1. id4joey - Sep 13, 2012 at 9:55 PM

    Greed!

  2. garryjercia - Sep 13, 2012 at 10:41 PM

    Yes, but by whom?

  3. mydadyourmom - Sep 13, 2012 at 11:02 PM

    Everyone.

  4. mpg44 - Sep 13, 2012 at 11:19 PM

    Cause fehr and bettman are morons who don’t realize that any type of work stoppage will significantly reduce that so called 3.3billion dollar in revenue.

  5. lostpuppysyndrome - Sep 14, 2012 at 12:04 AM

    Did they really need to get Macramalla on TV to repeat everything that’s already been said so far during the negotiations? I mean, the guy even referenced the “meaningful gulf.”

  6. sharksfanatic - Sep 14, 2012 at 1:47 AM

    Remember: Higher costs =Higher ticket prices!

  7. blomfeld - Sep 14, 2012 at 2:00 AM

    WHY ? …

    Well perhaps the answer lies in scripture, which says that … “Greed is excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions. In other words, greed is when one would extort, rip off, and even steal to get more money. Obviously, that would violate Scripture and Jesus’ command to love our neighbors” …

    The bottom line is that the owners and players alike are nothing more than B-grade vermin who are about to bite off more than they can chew. “He shall reap that which he sows” is an old adage which these fools would be well served to remember at this juncture. Regardless of whatever comes of this mess, I like many of you, will forever bask in the glory of our LA Kings 2012 march to Stanley Cup victory ! :)

    GO KINGS GO ! … TODAY, TOMORROW AND FOREVER !!!!!!!!

  8. firemarshal1 - Sep 14, 2012 at 8:24 AM

    Let’s honest NHL Players,

    What in the world is wrong with guys. Settle this CBA with a 50/50 split in revenue, free agency at 29 years old or 8 years in the NHL. Rookie contracts 3 years, then arbitration if parties can’t agree on new contract.

    1-2 percent set aside for stadium renovations, so that the local TAXPAYERS don’t have paid for it.

    WARNING: IF YOU WEREN’T PLAYING HOCKEY, WOULD YOU MAKING SAME THE AMOUNT OF MONEY WORKING AS CONSTRUCTION WORKER, POLICE OFFICER, FIREFIGHTER, OR FACTORY WORKER?

    I THINK SO. IT’S REALITY, WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE GUYS……..

    YOUR CAREER A LIMITED TIME SPAN. TIC, TOC, TIC, TOC…… OH MY, I’M 25 YEARS OLD, OH MY, I’M 30 YEARS, OH MY I’M 35 YEARS OLD NOW AND DONE.

    OH, I LOSE A YEAR SALARY OF 1 TO 7 MILLION DOLLARS…….UHHHHH….. FOR REST OF MY LIFE………..

    THAT WAS VERY STUPID…………….

  9. feedmetherock - Sep 14, 2012 at 8:53 AM

    The problem is that it isn’t the players that are at fault. You can tell them to take the deal on the table but it is not going to fix the long term economic issues of the sport. There are still teams that will not be profitable based on location and fanbase. At this point it is owners versus other owners. The rich teams vs. the non rich teams. Gary Bettmen came out the other day and said all the owners are behind him, however, when the NhLPA made their initial offer there was a report that 10 or more owners would have take that deal. So I have a hard time believing that the owners are all on the same page. My offer would be something like this:

    Hockey Related Revenue – 47 to players 53 to the league
    No salary rollbacks this year.
    FA is granted after 5 years. (hey if the owners want to make money, then the players deserve the same opportunity considering their window to get paid is much smaller than the owners)
    100% revenue sharing amongst teams.
    Compensation picks awarded to teams that lose big time stars. Similar to baseballs old compensation system. This will allow small market teams to gain additional picks and help them continue to build with cheap young talent.
    Max contract length of 8 years.
    Eliminate the salary cap floor. If teams are crying poor then you don’t have to spend the money. Plain and simple. But good luck retaining young talent.

    • lostpuppysyndrome - Sep 14, 2012 at 12:46 PM

      Most of that is ok, except for the revenue sharing system. That would reward an owner for simply owning a team, despite their own contribution to the pot. Do you want the money you paid for your ticket or jersey to go support another team, especially if the owner of said team makes poor business decisions or runs a team in a terrible hockey market? I doubt it. Actually I’d have no problem if they took 5% of my ticket/merch money to markets I thought were viable but were having trouble staying afloat so long as it’s not because of shady ownership or bad business practices. But why support teams like Phoenix or Florida when they could go to other markets where they would make money or at least not lose as much?

      At the same time, I do think players should take a cut to help fans out. How often have we heard fans complain about rising ticket prices? Well, the players have to get paid somehow, and we’re the ones who provide the revenue. HRR keeps rising, so salaries keep rising, but in weaker markets teams struggle to put butts in seats so they keep dropping ticket prices and operating at a moderate to substantial loss. That’s why the owners want players to lower their salaries. I don’t think for a second that it’s an across-the-board greediness that the owners all share. Maybe some or a few, but I think the rest are truly hockey fans who want to win and create a great experience for fans to share in.

      • tealwithit - Sep 15, 2012 at 7:41 PM

        lostpuppysyndrome – Well said. Mind if I ask who your team is? Purely out of curiosity.

      • lostpuppysyndrome - Sep 17, 2012 at 9:11 AM

        Jets #1, Wild #2. I’m an ex-Winnipegger living in Minneapolis.

  10. manchestermiracle - Sep 14, 2012 at 10:25 AM

    The owners spend enormous sums trying to outbid each other for the services of players and then can’t follow through on their promises. The players may be considered slightly to blame by accepting such bloated contracts, but who among us wouldn’t accept a fat raise at work? The assumption, of course, is that the person offering the money is smart enough to know what they can afford.

    And so then the owners involved in this mindless bidding turn to trying to renegotiate the CBA to curtail costs they are primarily responsible for creating. Any owner trying to show fiscal restraint loses free agents to other spendthrift and short-sighted teams and thus become the ultimate losers in this game. The league wants enough parity to permit small-market teams to be able to compete with the big boys, yet allows these unsustainable contracts to go through.

    If you bid on something in an auction and then can’t pay the price to which you agreed, they throw you out and don’t let you back in. No wonder another lock-out looms: It would appear that most owners (and some players) never went to that economics class in college.

    This all, sadly, reminds me of six-year-olds arguing over a toy and crying for a grown-up to intervene. Unfortunately for the NHL there are no grown-ups around to slap them into sanity.

Featured video

Caps' 'culture change' proving positive

Sign up for Fantasy hockey

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. J. Spezza (3591)
  2. P. Stastny (3109)
  3. E. Kane (2993)
  4. V. Hedman (2985)
  5. E. Staal (2797)
  1. J. Drouin (2672)
  2. M. Gaborik (2659)
  3. C. Crawford (2616)
  4. P. Datsyuk (2321)
  5. S. Varlamov (2290)