2012 CBA Discussion Part IV (Lockout talk here)
View Single Post
11-16-2012, 10:11 AM
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Originally Posted by
Some responses are bolded in your quote. I couldn't get multiquote to work so you can break up a rebuttal however you like.
You are right the facts are all over the internet. Instead of using one number (operating income for 2011); I have chosen to look at all of the numbers, how and why each team makes or loses money, factored in the players offer, TV contract, etc. What they show is 24 teams made money over the last CBA. The reason teams didn't make more/lose less is the owners. The new players offer takes care of all money issues. And if the owners are all in this to make money some certainly aren't showing it with how they run their teams.
I have put up plenty of facts. You said the Bruins
likely lost money. Prove it to me with numbers. If you can't then lets take the Forbes number at face value. I'm pretty sure there are things not accounted for on the revenue side as well but I can't prove they made more so I won't try.
My facts are from Forbes. They don't have 1 article that covers the whole CBA. Just because I don't link to every article doesn't mean the numbers I state aren't facts. I have looked at each years P&L from the Forbes numbers, and franchise value gain or loss and put them all in a spreadsheet. This year only 9 teams lost money. Over the CBA only 6 teams lost money. Only 3 teams lost any significant (relative) money. That is at 54 to 57%, overspending their budget, cap circumventing contracts, carrying too much debt.
Here are the losses: Net/Year is the important figure. Then look at their debt value and how much they spent over what they had to as required by the cap floor.
So only 2 teams would have lost money if they spent less money down to the floor. 4 wouldn't have had to cut payroll by much. Now had they spent within their budget the franchise value also usually goes up. The numbers (facts) show that the last CBA was very good for the owners. Record revenue, profit and franchise values. Very few teams in any actual trouble.
Now add in the money from the players offer. Add the new TV contract. Add the increased revenue sharing for these teams. Add in the savings as they pay down debt from now being profitable. The owners also get all money if a team is relocated or for new franchises which I'm sure will happen. Relocate Phoenix as the owners could have done at a profit 3 years ago and what does that do to the numbers?
Your facts are actually a lot of speculation, rumors, false, and/or incomplete.
I have to give you props, you research like the dickens when your opinion in challenged. You have to appreciate the effort, fine post. A couple of major issues however.
First and foremost. Owners have issue with what's happening in the present and what's likely to happen if things continue on their present course. Not what happened in 2005 when the cap was half what it is now. You're using the entire lifespan of the CBA to show that only 6 teams lost money during that time. From an earlier post:
Originally Posted by
But then, look at salaries the year after the lockout:
1 Jagr Jaromir RW New York Rangers $8,360,000.00
2 Yashin Alexei C New York Islanders $7,600,000.00
3 Lidstrom Nicklas D Detroit Red Wings $7,600,000.00
4 Tkachuk Keith LW St. Louis Blues $7,600,000.00
5 Iginla Jarome RW Calgary Flames $7,000,000.00
6 Sundin Mats C Toronto Maple Leafs $6,840,000.00
7 Khabibulin Nikolai G Chicago Blackhawks $6,750,000.00
8 Niedermayer Scott D Anaheim Mighty Ducks $6,750,000.00
9 Guerin Bill RW Dallas Stars $6,738,498.00
10 Sakic Joe C Colorado Avalanche $6,664,797.00
Significantly lower, much more reasonable. All teams could afford their payroll. There was parity, and a level playing field for all. Proving what?
At first, when revenues were down the lockout and cap accomplished what the owners wanted.
Teams originally made money. The cap didn't stay at 39million however, and it's very likely it will never ever go that low again. As the cap grew, more and more teams lost money. In 2006 only 8 teams lost money, 3 of those under 2mil. In 2008, that number jumped to 12. In 2010 that number jumped to 16. In 2012 we know that number is now 18 teams that are losing money. Do you see a pattern? Now realize regardless of those figures (provided by Forbes) the players want their share of the pot to continue to increase yearly. See the big issue?
Second major issue, you don't consider the teams that already have to operate under and internal cap lower then the NHL cap figure in order to try an make bank. Last year 7 teams operated 10 million dollars below the cap ceiling in order to cut costs. 12 teams operated 5 million below the ceiling. Of those 12 teams only Ottawa (operated $12,646,621 below cap ceiling, operating income of 2.1mill) and Colorado (operated $14,898,928 below cap ceiling, operating income of 6.1mill) made money. If you're happy with an NHL such as we had pre-2004 (and now have again), where certain teams afford all the talent while other teams can't afford to keep their own players then these numbers should make you extremely happy. I personally don't want that, but it seems to be what you're advocating here?
As for running out of owners. Yes, the news that LA has been for sale for 3 years is rumor, but these guys don't exactly list their teams for sale on Craigslist. Leiweke was confirmed as trying to sell a minority share in the Kings back in 2008. Also, when I mentioned "viable" in conjunction with "owners" it was to exclude folks like Jim Balsillie in the whole Phoenix debacle. He wasn't deemed viable by the board of governors and the direction RIM has taken the past year somewhat verifies their concerns. You ask why someone would lose money on Nashville, sell for a profit to local investors mitigating some of those losses, then buy Minnesota and pay 13mill to bring in two big name local players? It seems fairly obvious, but likely (a) because he wants to own an NHL team and (b) because he thought the potential for profit in Minnesota was greater then it was in Nashville, which isn't much of a leap considering Nashville loses money every year even though they consistently contend. Minnesota loses less money per season, has better attendance, and an on ice product that could be improved. It would also explain why he decided to bring in two local all-stars to build around. I'm spit balling on that one, but I can't get into his head to find out why exactly he did it. If I had to guess based on what Leipold has said in the past, it's possible I'm not that far off. Certainly closer then "he likes to lose money" I'd hope.
I'm honestly not sure how I should argue your idea that owners are at least OK with losing money, other then to say "hey look, it's a lockout!"? As to why they shell out big on cap circumventing contracts, likely because competitive teams make money, better players make a team more competitive, and the best players want (and will get) their money from someone. I know the suggestion on the other side is that all 30 owners collectively agree not to pay the players those sums, No doubt a reason most owners are big proponents of maximum contract lengths being part of the new CBA.
Again, I appreciate the work you've gone through to try and prop up your opinion, but the very real fact is that right now the NHL is not profitable for the majority of owners. The biggest reason for that is that player salaries are out of control. While it's nice to say "well don't spend so much on salaries then and you can turn a bigger profit", and doing our best at ignoring the ramifications on the quality of the over all on ice product that strategy would have, if they don't spend the money a team like the Rangers or Leafs will, they'll lose out on the better players and their teams competitiveness will suffer. Fans don't like to spend tons of money on non competitive teams outside of Toronto.
We aren't talking about screwing over NHL players here, 8-9mill should still be considered a reasonable maximum salary for a guy who plays hockey... no? Surely they could eek out some kind of meager existence on that salary, I know it would be tough, but can we not chalk it up to the sacrifices one has to make for the betterment of the sport? Sure that means a guy like Crosby may be only able to buy fifteen Ferrari 599 GTO Coupe's this year instead of twenty, and one multimillion dollar home instead of three or four but he'd scrape by. OK, that last bit is overly sarcastic and I apologize, but I just couldn't resist. As AOF stated, the money these guys makes is absolutely filthy and still would be if those figures were cut in half even.
Last edited by Kaoz: 11-16-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Kaoz