Electronic Keypad Lock With Code
The big thing that is really pissing me off is that neither side seems interested in actually settling this, yes with the Fehr brothers leading the way I figured it wouldn't be quick and easy, but this is just ****ing ridiculous.
And to go a little further on that Thud,I just saw on ESPN that Malkin signed with a KHL team through the 2012-2013 Season. On that note,it maybe until Dec. before the League and NHLPA gave come to an agreement Ina new CBA.
If only we could get Rick Harrison to negotiate this thing. This whole mess would be handled so quickly.. all while adding tons of interesting facts for us along the way.
LA Kings Hockey - Disappointing Kings fans since 1967!
LA Kings Hockey - 2012 Stanley Cup Champions!
When Forbes looked at the finances of the Kings they came to the conclusion that all of these inter-company transactions were more or less at market rates. For example, the Kings have to be responsible for paying rent at Staples; they can't play at Staples rent-free. The fact that AEG owns Staples has no effect on the Kings' finances; Staples was built and financed on its own terms. It has to be able to charge rent, even to its corporate siblings. You may believe that AEG is "hiding" profits somewhere else, but Forbes didn't.
Besides, the question on the table is not whether AEG has made a shrewd move by vertically integrating its sports and entertainment business; it's whether the economics of the NHL make it difficult for even a nominally successful franchise like the Kings to be profitable. Each of the 30 NHL hockey clubs has to cover its own expenses, whether it gets those services from inside or outside its corporate ownership.
Now, it may be true that AEG gained considerable leverage in its negotiations with the City of Los Angeles and, I guess, the State, by building Staples and its other real estate holdings in the area and have probably increased its corporate profits as a result. I would submit, however, that the analysis of whether the Kings are profitable (or whether any similarly-situated NHL hockey club is profitable) should not consider these ancillary transactions.
As to the behavior of the NHL ownership offering over-priced contracts to players and then crying foul that the system is broken, I think of it like this: If I had a business and the market rates that I had to pay for my feedstock (raw materials) were so high that I couldn't make a profit when I sold my finished product, also at market rates, I'd probably close the business. Even though I might not believe that my raw materials should be so expensive, competitive pressures in the industry have created a market where my raw materials (probably because they are relatively rare) cost too much for me to be profitable (especially the really good raw material). As particular industries wax and wane over time, this happens all the time. That's where the owners of NHL franchises say they are.
To combat what might be a fundamentally unprofitable (and maybe, non-existent) industry, the owners and, for separate reasons, the raw materials (players) have agreed that the economics of the industry should be controlled by a Collective Bargaining Agreement that lays out rules which, although they might be contrary to the rules of a free and open market, would allow the industry to survive. If the parties are able to negotiate a mutually-beneficial CBA, then the industry has an opportunity to exist; ie, the owners can earn a reasonable return on their investment and the raw materials (players) can earn enough to sufficiently prompt them to develop their skills to the extent that they do.
By the way, the circumstances of the other major sports leagues (football, baseball and basketball), because of their enormous television contracts, should make their collective bargaining easier. In fact, it doesn't. For each of these other major sports, recent collective bargaining has brought each side kicking and screaming to CBAs with more or less identical 50/50 splits of revenues.
So, my take is that for NHL players to refuse to negotiate down from their current 57% is, it seems to me, pure folly. I can't believe the NHL owners would agree to a CBA that was materially worse than the ones agreed to by their non-NHL peers (who have much more TV money in their pockets).
I probably wrote this only for my own benefit and I would expect many would disagree. I'm pretty sure, though, that in the final analysis, this is the way the NHL ownership group thinks. As a result, I suspect that the agreement will end up (and rightly so) close to 50/50 and the players should get there now ... not in three, five, or twelve months.
It does make you wonder why teams and players alike wanted to get contracts signed under such a heinous agreement in at the last minutes.
Heinous to the owners because they now won't conduct business under the last system they previously agreed to.
Heinous to the players because they "gave in" so badly during the last CBA negotiations.
Last edited by Bogey; September 16th, 2012 at 03:47 PM.