Lockout discussion thread
View Single Post
10-27-2012, 05:47 AM
Join Date: Mar 2003
Originally Posted by
Will all due respect, this is nonsense. The last lockout all we heard from the owners was how "cost certainty" was going to fix everything.
They needed "cost certainty" in order to survive.
How is it possible that they got everything they wanted last time that was supposed to fix everything, revenue grew to an all time high at a record pace and still they are crying poor. Once again the owners are asking the players to save the owners from themselves.
With all due respect......do you really believe everything that you hear and read that is put out there for public consumption. This was clearly a two phase bargaining strategy that the owners used.
Originally Posted by
The situation's a bit more complex than that. The cost certainty values established by the last CBA have done wonders for league revenues but not every team has seen the same kind of increases. Right now hockey profits come in at somewhere about 127 million. However if you remove the big three teams (Toronto, Montreal and the Rangers) league revenues drop to -44 million (yes, 44 million in the hole). Expand the big three to the big five (add Vancouver and Edmonton) and that number drops to a loss of 86 million. Only eight teams make more than 5 million a season (the above, plus Detroit, Chicago and Colorado) and only twelve actually turn a profit (those eight plus the Flyers, Ottawa, Calgary and Boston).
That's less than half the teams turning a profit. Is some of the reason for it owners who spend foolishly? Of course. The Wild, who have the second highest payroll in the league finished last season about six million in the red. But of the five teams with the lowest revenue in the league (the Coyotes, Columbus, Tampa Bay, Anaheim and the Islanders) two are below the salary floor (Phoenix and the Islanders) and two are
very close (Anaheim (within two million) and Columbus (within four million)).
The problem is that some teams are very rich and some teams are not. Montreal, Toronto and the Rangers account for 130% of the league's total revenue. And that skews the numbers very badly. This is a problem, but there are three solutions:
Reduce the cap and floor by seven percent. This will probably not save Phoenix from being a "have not" team, but it would bring Columbus and Anaheim very close.
Increase cost sharing. Not palatable to the owners of the profitable teams. Molson bought the Canadiens for 500 million dollars and Bell probably paid a similar amount for the Leafs (although it's harder to figure out, as MLSE owns several sports investments). True North bought the Thrashers/Jets $170 million. Why should Geoff and Bell sacrifice their ROI to finance the ROI for True North, who paid much less to get in the game?
Contract. Kill off the teams that are weak.
Of these three options the league wants the first, the players want the second and no one wants the third. Which one is more fair to us? Probably the compromise that gets us back to hockey soonest. But it's not as simple as "everything was fixed last time, why are we here again".
Best post in this thread......hands down.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Estimated_Prophet