View Single Post
Old
10-31-2012, 02:11 AM
  #32
heartsabres*
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Budapest
Country: Hungary
Posts: 1,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
I won't call them greedy, but they're sure as hell wrong on how the financials are going to shake out. These are the highlights for me:

1. The NFL gives its players 47%. Albeit without a cap, MLB gives its players ~45%. The NBA gives its players 50%. ALL of these leagues make more in TV revenue, which is the one major source of money that has NO OVERHEAD COSTS for owners, meaning the NHL pays out more in overhead for every dollar they make back than in these other leagues. If any of these leagues are anything like the NHL, this would indicate players should actually get less than 50% in the NHL.

2. Forbes reports that the median NHL team is losing money. The average NHL team makes only $4M/year, well less than a reasonable return on investment on the market. For the NHL to thrive in the long-term, they need to be a reasonably successful investment. For a franchise you paid $300M for, a 1.33% return on investment won't cut it.

3. RS can help plug holes, but not holes this big. No other major sports league has adopted a RS program that relies on 3-4 teams getting pillaged to keep afloat half the league that's underwater. The NFL may have tremendous sharing, but it doesn't amount to tremendous redistribution - even the poorest teams are putting into the pot, and even the richest teams are taking out of it. Even under the most draconian, politically impossible RS program, where you take away 95% of Toronto's profit, you can only get the average team to $4M/year profit. Split that between several owners in some cases, and the average owner makes less than the average player, while being on the line for all liabilities of the franchise and fronting all of its capital. It's not just bad, it's insane. Even the players don't seem to think that RS can do that much, because they only proposed increasing it from 150 to 240, which the owners met them more than halfway on.

4. Back to owners losing money. Owners are the party that makes the least out of this deal by far, and that's why they have all the leverage. If ~25 games get cancelled, players will have lost $500M that they would have earned, the whole amount they were fighting for between the last two proposals. If ~25 games get lost, owners will lose ~30M, net. It would take 4 years of cancelled games before the owners would lose enough to make taking the players offer worth it. So yeah, the owners can damn well sit it out, and the players are going to have to have a come to Jesus moment where they realize the only people keeping them from making money is themselves.

So yeah, maybe the NHL isn't asking for their absolute, can't-operate-without-it, red line here. But the facts all indicate that they're fighting for something close. Hell, the facts indicate they might not even be asking for enough at this point - I think it's likely that they offered more than some owners were comfortable with (as is now rumored) because they knew losing games would hurt the tremendous growth momentum they had, and so were okay with operating a little more underwater for a 5 year term to not lose that.

Players, on the other hand, seem to be living on some other planet where 57=50, revenues=profit, their contracts were never subject to the CBA, and they earned everything they got even if they earned more than their team could literally afford to pay them without robbing the owner's personal bank account. The wake up call has been sounding, and pretty soon they'll realize it.

Google "union pay cuts"
Teachers, doctors, police officers, autoworks they do it to survive to keep there profession going to keep their job
NHL Players you have fans these professions donīt
Why are the players not stepping up? They are ******* greedy


Last edited by Chainshot: 10-31-2012 at 07:56 AM. Reason: Cut it out.
heartsabres* is offline   Reply With Quote