View Single Post
09-14-2012, 05:29 PM
Registered User
zbubble's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,133
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Okay, fine. So tell me how you correct management/market issues through the CBA negotiations, or even what those poor management issues are (I'm presuming you mean spending too much on players, which is exactly what you fix through a lower cap).
Take any franchise that lost money and look at everything going in and out. Player salaries are just a piece of the pie. You need to look at how they're structured. Then, there's presidents, gms, coaching staff, front office, leasing deals (favorable and unfavorable), advertising deals, ticket prices, ticket sales, travel costs, merchandise sales, things like that. Identify which ones seem out of whack and figure out why. Are teams spending too much in different areas, and are they getting all they can in income or are they short-changing themselves and passing the losses onto the players?

So now back to player salary. Here's an easy example on salary structure. Buffalo Sabres, like other teams, have adopted the practice of front loading large contracts. Myers and Ehroff's are a perfect example. They are receiving 20 million dollars combined in salary this year, but their combined cap hit is only 9.5 million. So the Sabres are currently paying out more money in actual dollars than cap dollars.

Actual dollars spent in a year is the number the NHL is using to determine its losses. As a side note, that 240 million in losses is a figure over 2 years, not just last year as some people assume.

So there are 5 contracts on the Sabres alone where the actual dollars spent diminish as time goes on. If it's safe to the same occurs on every team, you're looking at potentially 20% of all players having contracts that pay out more now than later.

What this means is that teams are currently spending over the cap in actual dollars.

Which begs the question, if the NHL is losing money now, is it because the "cap" is too high, or is it because the teams themselves have created a situation where more money is being paid out to players sooner than later?

Fine if you can afford it and don't care like Terry P., but if you can't and are losing money for the sake of signing guys you really can't afford, then that would be a poor management issue.

This is how I see it:

1. NHL players make a higher percentage of revenues than in other sports.
Literally comparing apples to oranges.

2. The NHL makes a net loss, leaguewide - so more revenue sharing is fine, but mathematically it couldn't fix the problem. It's definitely not a 29:1 ratio in terms of profit/loss, either. My guess would be closer to 2:1.
You'd be about right on the number of teams that report a loss, but see my above example on how the math isn't even being done correctly.

3. Less of the NHL's revenue comes from TV than other sports, which means more of it depends on the live game, the merchandise, and other streams that have higher production costs to owners. So a higher proportion of that 43% of non-player money gets eaten up in producing the goods consumed, it doesn't just get handed to them by a network.
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here.

4. Management/market issues sounds like "let's relocate or give new ownership to Phoenix, Florida and the Islanders and that's how you fix it."
It simply means don't shoot yourself in the foot and blame the players for it. If you can't manage your own money then it's your fault.

I don't buy it. I don't see where the guaranteed great hockey market is lurking out there, unexploited, and I definitely
Is Winnipeg a better market than Atlanta? I'd say so. There are cities out these begging for a team - Quebec, Seattle, Kansas City. They laugh off Basille for wanting to buy Phoenix and move it, instead drawing maybe 5,000 fans on a good night.

don't believe you can ever get rid of what someone subjectively finds "bad management." There's always going to be some poorly run teams somewhere in the league that pay too much for too little talent.
Unfortunately people will never stop inventing new ways to be stupid.

The best you can do is cap their expenditures with, you guessed it, a salary cap.
Agree to disagree there.

What's so wrong about a league that's losing money asking it's players to merely come into line with the salary structures of comparable healthy sports leagues? Why should that be the last thing to change, after relocation, revenue sharing (which really just rewards bad management, when you think about it, not discourages it), etc?
This point has been made several times, the players agreed to a reduction in salary under the condition that the owners also do a better job at sharing profits so _every one_ makes money and they don't go through the same issues every 6 years. What's wrong with that?

zbubble is offline   Reply With Quote