NHL wants the players to pay for its mistakes
Over-expansion, poor locations prime reasons some teams lose cash
There is certainly a pretty solid understanding of why Steve Fehr and Bill Daly were the two to kick-start the stalled CBA negotiations after the owners indicated they may change the “make whole” provision in their last offer this week.
Given the way the last meeting came to an end, it wasn’t going to be the main protagonists.
As most people have heard by now, the more than a dozen assembled players at the last meeting were listening to Jeremy Jacobs pontificate on the merits of the commissioner. He was saying that while Gary Bettman is definitely the owners’ representative, he also “works so hard for the players,” which caused the assembled athletes to simply stare in disbelief that he would advance such drivel.
After the Bruins’ owner was finished, the NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr granted that the commissioner did in fact work tirelessly for the owners. But then he added, “if he works for the players, can we fire him now?”
Evidently Mr. Bettman was not amused, which accounts for the recent 17 days of animosity which have been chilling talks. But neither are the players amused at this full frontal, particularly when the reason given for this whole lockout is that there are 10 teams in the league still losing money despite the fact revenues have soared over the term of the last agreement.
To understand why the players find this argument so endlessly tiresome, you have to understand the economics and how revenue sharing works, and how more of said sharing could solve the problem. But there is also an historical component of which many of the veteran players are keenly aware, to say nothing of past teammates the players may run into who have an even greater understanding how these 10 teams came to be.
When you try to identify which teams might be losing, were you to actually buy an argument that they’re losing money on a dollar-in, dollar-out basis, you would certainly finger Columbus, Anaheim, Nashville, Phoenix, the Islanders and Florida, for sure. Then Tampa, New Jersey and Carolina are likely candidates, and perhaps at this point Colorado after a long run of success.
St. Louis could be losing, and San Jose might also be able to be included, although there would have to be some pretty fancy bookkeeping to turn endless sellouts into a losing proposition. That’s a guess on the teams give or take one or two, but look at that group, because that’s what really gets the players.
How many of those teams were put in their present location by Mr. Bettman himself over his tenure as commissioner, often against the better judgment of many bright minds in the game?
He wanted to expand the reach of television, and while after many years the league’s U.S. television revenue has finally begun to rise, it’s come at the considerable cost of many dodgy franchise locations.
Another huge driving force in putting those teams into the locations they occupy were the massive expansion fees the owners put into their pockets without giving a dime to the players. Now they want the players to pay for those mistakes, to cover the cost of those greedy moves by surrendering another huge share of the revenue.
And you can bet there’s more expansion to come. The reason Phoenix hasn’t moved to another prime location like southern Ontario is because the commissioner doesn’t like to run out on fans, which is commendable.
And time out here, we commend him for those sentiments. But there is also the promise of more expansion on the way, two more teams.
That’s what that the uneven realignment structure was all about when it was announced. And with those teams, there will be massive expansion fees on the way, a $300-million tab not out of the question.
And guess how much the players are expected to get out of that transaction? In the meantime, they have to watch that Coyotes team lose money by the carload at their expense.
And then they’re treated to a lecture on how hard the commissioner works on their behalf? Imagine their delight.