View Single Post
11-18-2012, 08:53 PM
Registered User
sjaustin77's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
Here's a little project for you: Go back to the beginning of the CBA (use Forbes) and re-calculate everything using the 54% players share and a cap floor of 55% (?) of the cap thru the complete term of the CBA - and you can even leave out revenue sharing - and you'll be surprised at how many teams you don't find in the red

The average difference is under $3M going from 54% to 57% however it isn't uniform. 8 teams showed an operating income loss in 2006. 12 teams show a higher profit/lower loss in 2011 than 2006 so going to 57% itself wasn't a major problem. That's right 12 teams did better at 57% than 54%.

The cap floor going up so much was a problem. If it stayed at the same % each year; somewhere around 65% (between the 55% start & 75% end of the last CBA) would be good. It would make it easier for teams to profit while only lowering competitiveness a little bit.

And to use statistics that are already known to not be 100% accurate not only clouds your judgement, but also the judgement of everyone reading it. And I know that it may be the only information readily available to you, but if we already know it not to be entirely accurate, then is it not better to leave it alone and discuss the facts that are available?

I'm not sure I get this. You say leave the information readily available to me alone but discuss the facts that are available. Those are the same thing. I'm discussing the facts (as they are available) to me as is everyone else. You make it sound like what I'm discussing isn't facts while what everyone else is discussing is. We are all using Forbes. What I am doing however is using all the facts or information I guess is a better word available to me. Not just 1 number from 1 year of operations.

I also know that along with the hockey operations are other revenue streams available to owners. Arena deals, other franchises, cable deals, franchise value, etc. Should hockey operations be profitable on their own? Sure but everyone is ignoring all other aspects. The large majority of owners are not losing money because they own a hockey team. The ones who do usually cost themselves by mismanagement, overspending, debt load, etc.

Personally, right now, I don't care whether they settle or not - only that they get it right this time, because the last time, they sure as hell didn't (both sides).
I care because I want hockey and I also care that they get it right. The agreement was there in October before games were lost and the numbers work. I will show you the numbers in another post after I get through the others that you responded to. The owners aren't getting it right now because they are costing revenue everyday and making it harder to come to an agreement.

sjaustin77 is offline