View Single Post
10-03-2012, 10:47 AM
Global Moderator
hatterson's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,706
vCash: 50
Send a message via Skype™ to hatterson
Originally Posted by AHockeyGameBrokeOut View Post
The value of stock itself would naturally increase, which would result in stock splits. There would be more shares on the market, but they'd still be worth more than the initial valuation. Share prices naturally grow in an expanding business. The NHL's exponential revenue growth to 3.4 billion is a gospel testament to the fact that stock prices will grow as well.
How do increasing stock prices and stock splits affect the fact that the corporation would still have to be giving out more stock. A stock split wouldn't magically place more shares in the hands of the corporation, it just means that everyone has double (or triple) the number of shares they used to have and they're worth half the price.

Originally Posted by AHockeyGameBrokeOut View Post
Furthermore, the league could use the additional profits to give us even more franchises. Quebec is getting another team in 2015. Minnesota may get a second NHL team by 2020. California has room for at least 3 more teams (in San Francisco, San Diego and Sacramento). There will be more teams created and even more revenue to go around. By 2025 there may be as many as 40 NHL franchises.
This doesn't even make sense. It seems as if you're wrapping about 3 different ideas into one proposal, and then ignoring half of about each idea which results in a concept that is neither good nor bad, it's just simply incoherent.

Idea 1: Offer the players a share of ownership in lieu of a higher percentage of revenue.

Idea 2: Create some NHL super corporate entity where teams are simply locations in the corporation not independent entities who have formed a league together (only real way to use profits to create new teams on a league scale)

Idea 3: Offer this new NHL corporation publicly.

The issue with idea 1 is that, while it might appease current players it does nothing for future negotiations. If I give current players 10% of ownership now for a 10 year CBA what happens in 10 years when 98% of the old players are now retired? Do I have to up my compensation to the new players or do I have to offer them ownership as well?

The issues with idea 2 are far too numerous to mention all of them but a small sample include massive anti-trust issues, significant issues about share of ownership of the new corporation for the various team owners and massive regulatory issues to prevent game fixing.

The issue with idea 3 is that it doesn't really have a point. One you have this NHL corporation what advantages does a transition to a public company provide? Sure it'll raise some capital for the company, but where does that get used? Expansion? The issue now is that we're already having trouble keeping some franchises afloat, how is adding more going to help?

Originally Posted by AHockeyGameBrokeOut View Post
I'd subject them to cash calls in a heartbeat. You want ownership, ownership means responsibility. If the team goes under, you lose everything. That's what ownership means. There's a disturbing lack of accountability in society today, and that same accountability is the reason we have a recession, a lockout, and everything else that is wrong with the world. Accountability and responsibility must be enforced by any means necessary.
Players fundamentally don't want to be owners. They want to get a higher share (compared to owners current CBA offer) of the revenue they help generate.

Originally Posted by AHockeyGameBrokeOut View Post
What the players want is a handout. Money which is given without the promise of additional work-related responsibility is just that - a handout. NHLPA is lucky they get anything at all, and a number of the players may wind up using that money to invest in extra security after some of the ridiculous statements they've made during this off-season.
How is the NHLPA lucky they get anything at all? They've helped make the owners (at least most of them) boatloads of money (profits and increased franchise value) and they have a legal right to collectively bargain for their working conditions. Also, how is "Money which is given without the promise of additional work-related responsibility" a "handout" Most people would refer to "Money which is given without the promise of additional work-related responsibility" as a normal raise. Asking for a raise isn't asking for a handout, it's asking for your compensation to be more in line with your value to the company. Certainly there can be debate over what that value is, and what your compensation should be, but asking for a raise (or in this case, asking to not have your pay cut) is fundamentally not a handout.

Originally Posted by AHockeyGameBrokeOut View Post
So, basically you admit the players are acting like little spoiled children? All the more reason to side with the league and the owners.
Players do something that is economically simple (play hockey) and are looking for economically simple compensation for that (a paycheck). It's the same as I do at my job. I do something that is economically simple (write software) and I expect to be compensated in an economically simple way (a paycheck). If I did something that is economically complex (upper management) then it would be more reasonable to receive economically complex compensation (stock options, etc.)

Come join us on the By The Numbers forum. Take a look at our introduction post if you're new. If you have any questions, feel free to PM me.
hatterson is online now   Reply With Quote