Class action lawsuit filed against CHL over wages

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I think the exact rules vary by league, but generally, yes. And it is one year of university, not just Canadian. They could go to an American college too. One of the silly restrictions though is that it does not include tech schools, CEGEPs, etc. Just universities.

If that is true it is a recent development as I know a few ex-chl'ers that went to SAIT on the WHL's dime.

[automaton 3]

As I understand it there is some flexibility to the scholarships.

Although there are some teams that make money, many are fairly marginal. Revenue (the key driver being ticket sales) would need to go up significantly if teams were to pay even minimum wages. With some teams facing attendance issues a ticket price increase is not likely to help.

Will be interesting to see if this goes anywhere.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Reaper

If that is true it is a recent development as I know a few ex-chl'ers that went to SAIT on the WHL's dime.

Hmm. You're right, actually. I was recalling something stated during the CHLPA fiasco. My bad for not checking the veracity of that.

[Stanathan]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I just don't think the CHL is special. It's a business that should be run like any other. Why shouldn't a CHL franchise have to operate under the same conditions McDonald's operates under?

Such as a long-standing blind eye to the abuse of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program :P

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

As I understand it there is some flexibility to the scholarships.

Although there are some teams that make money, many are fairly marginal. Revenue (the key driver being ticket sales) would need to go up significantly if teams were to pay even minimum wages. With some teams facing attendance issues a ticket price increase is not likely to help.

Will be interesting to see if this goes anywhere.

Assuming they win, you now have kids dealing with tax forms from four provinces and two states, pretty much necessitating accountants. Union dues (because lord knows Unifor isn't in this for altruistic reasons), everything the players get free become taxable benefits, etc. One has to wonder how much better off they would be, if at all.

Collectively, it will mean the end of a few teams. Goodbye Swift Current and Kootenay. Though as a complete side story, if the CHL ends up with the worst case scenario, it would be rather interesting to see what happens to the OHL given that league is the epicentre of rumoured under-the-table payments.

What also really interests me about this is that the hypocritical union leaders and lawyers aren't going after the CJHL. I suspect it is only because they know they don't stand to make much money off of Junior A teams.

[GioforPM]

FWIW, this is the WHL page regarding scholarships:

http://whl.ca/prospects-central-whl-scholarship-program

[jtfrogger]

My biggest issue with the CHL is that the scholarship disappears if they play more than one pro league, and that includes the ECHL. Why force players to make a choice after one year? Because it saves teams money. I see no other good reason not to give them three years to try and make it.

[GioforPM]

Warrener this morning said he was torn - could see both sides. Specifically referenced the difference in revenue between the teams that get 12,000 versus teams in cities smaller than that.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Hmm. You're right, actually. I was recalling something stated during the CHLPA fiasco. My bad for not checking the veracity of that.

I think, if memory serves, the biggest issue is they need to use the scholarship directly after leaving the CHL. If a player leaves the CHL and tries to play pro, even minor/semi-pro they void their scholarship.

Hell I think that if the kid takes a year off to travel the world and find himself he voids the scholarship.

I would rather see a 3-4-5 year window to allow players to try the pro route. If that fails they can then go back to the scholarship and return to school.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

FWIW, this is the WHL page regarding scholarships:

http://whl.ca/prospects-central-whl-scholarship-program

Originally Posted by jtfrogger

My biggest issue with the CHL is that the scholarship disappears if they play more than one pro league, and that includes the ECHL. Why force players to make a choice after one year? Because it saves teams money. I see no other good reason not to give them three years to try and make it.

Out of thanks, so thank to you both.

[firecenter]

This argument is driving me nuts. Me and my neighbor were having a discussion, his cousin works for a WHL team in BC. Personally, this lawsuit comes from the uneducated (about junior hockey), and will destroy hockey as we know it.

- All these articles reference revenue. Terrible way to come to the conclusion that these owners make money. Believe me, at best half do, and it isnt a lot. Costs per player per team are in the tens of thousands. Do the math, they won't be better off with a salary (tax, new costs to encure).

- The 4 WHL teams that have open books... PA lost like 200,000 last year, Lethbridge 400,000, Swift made money for the first time in a while i believe, and MJ made 200,000. Yah they are smaller markets, but they also run with fewer costs. Bigger markets do not mean better profit. Advertising, having worked for a paper in CGY, is grossly expensive, and i know the Hitmen do a lot of it. Higher arena costs in larger markets as well.

- This is amateur sports. The business is needed to support the athletes. Are downhill skiers employees? Without the owners, there is no Jr hockey, plain and simple. The costs are just too high

- The day this gets approved, bye bye CHL, bye bye Jr A. What are we left with?

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by firecenter

This argument is driving me nuts. Me and my neighbor were having a discussion, his cousin works for a WHL team in BC. Personally, this lawsuit comes from the uneducated (about junior hockey), and will destroy hockey as we know it.

- All these articles reference revenue. Terrible way to come to the conclusion that these owners make money. Believe me, at best half do, and it isnt a lot. Costs per player per team are in the tens of thousands. Do the math, they won't be better off with a salary (tax, new costs to encure).

- The 4 WHL teams that have open books... PA lost like 200,000 last year, Lethbridge 400,000, Swift made money for the first time in a while i believe, and MJ made 200,000. Yah they are smaller markets, but they also run with fewer costs. Bigger markets do not mean better profit. Advertising, having worked for a paper in CGY, is grossly expensive, and i know the Hitmen do a lot of it. Higher arena costs in larger markets as well.

- This is amateur sports. The business is needed to support the athletes. Are downhill skiers employees? Without the owners, there is no Jr hockey, plain and simple. The costs are just too high

- The day this gets approved, bye bye CHL, bye bye Jr A. What are we left with?

If the league can't afford to pay it's players than it can't afford to pay anyone else. Even dollar of revenue comes from the shoulders of those 16-20 year olds.

(And there are prizes in competitive downhill ski races)

[Kjesse]

This lawsuit should force a lot of information out in the open, and the result will undoubtedly benefit those future CHL players who despite being gifted, aren't able to make it to the NHL or other professional league. Its going to force more transparency about how much money is made on the backs of their talent.

At a minimum its going to improve the scholarship... bare minimum. Given the thousands of Canadian kids its going to help, and though I love what the WHL brings to the table, I support this class action whole heartedly. Its going to force a conversation which is long overdue. That conversation will still be imbalanced, in favour of the CHL, but even as a usually management-siding guy, I really think this needs to happen.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Stanathan

I am interested in who the primary players are that started this.

Why? So they can be punished?

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You're kidding yourself if you think this is about the kids. This is lawyers and a union looking to get rich off the backs of those kids. Which is ironic given the complaints in the suit.

This may qualify as your worst post on this forum, ever.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by firecenter

This argument is driving me nuts. Me and my neighbor were having a discussion, his cousin works for a WHL team in BC. Personally, this lawsuit comes from the uneducated (about junior hockey), and will destroy hockey as we know it.

- All these articles reference revenue. Terrible way to come to the conclusion that these owners make money. Believe me, at best half do, and it isnt a lot. Costs per player per team are in the tens of thousands. Do the math, they won't be better off with a salary (tax, new costs to encure).

- The 4 WHL teams that have open books... PA lost like 200,000 last year, Lethbridge 400,000, Swift made money for the first time in a while i believe, and MJ made 200,000. Yah they are smaller markets, but they also run with fewer costs. Bigger markets do not mean better profit. Advertising, having worked for a paper in CGY, is grossly expensive, and i know the Hitmen do a lot of it. Higher arena costs in larger markets as well.

- This is amateur sports. The business is needed to support the athletes. Are downhill skiers employees? Without the owners, there is no Jr hockey, plain and simple. The costs are just too high

- The day this gets approved, bye bye CHL, bye bye Jr A. What are we left with?

I've heard it many times, that the Hitmen when tied into the Flames operation, are a margin rich, very profitable wing of the business.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You're kidding yourself if you think this is about the kids. This is lawyers and a union looking to get rich off the backs of those kids. Which is ironic given the complaints in the suit.

And to be fair I should add that my reply is as much a drive-by post as yours was. I'm willing to debate this with you over the next while in a fair manner if you are.

[firecenter]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

I've heard it many times, that the Hitmen when tied into the Flames operation, are a margin rich, very profitable wing of the business.

That I do not doubt for a second. Quantities of scale, concessions, very lucrative model. Unfortunately, they would be the exception. Vancouver, I do know, is not so lucky.

The bottom line in all of this, they do not receive wages, but have everything else paid for, to the tune of probably over $25k using my math. Flip things around, where there are wages, and then have the players pay for all their own stuff, not an efficient system, and are no better off.

[Jay Random]

The real question here should be: Is the CHL a professonal league or not? If it's a professional league, it should be paying its players. If not, it shouldn't. It seems to me that this lawsuit is an attempt to force the CHL, which has always been regarded as an amateur league (except by the NCAA with its draconic definition of 'professional'), to turn itself into a pro league and conduct its business accordingly. If that's what you all want to see, fine. I don't think either the CHL, its players, or hockey as a whole will benefit from having kids turn pro for minimum wage at age 16.

Then, as someone mentioned upthread, if the CHL is a pro league, what about Junior A? What about leagues further down the pecking order? At what level of youth hockey are the players actually allowed to be amateur, or is it to be all pros all the way down?

It's a very big can of worms that we're opening here.

[firecenter]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You're kidding yourself if you think this is about the kids. This is lawyers and a union looking to get rich off the backs of those kids. Which is ironic given the complaints in the suit.

Originally Posted by Delgar

This may qualify as your worst post on this forum, ever.

The point is fair. From what I recall, the union thing last year, and then this, have come from lawyers, with no real player presence. If the players are that passionate about it, the whole intimidation thing gets thrown out the door. I have a feeling they aren't....