View Single Post
Old
11-19-2012, 01:52 AM
  #266
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,145
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
Sure they are arbitrary but they are based off comparable situations. Some sell for more than Forbes number, some sell for less. The facts are that if you run your team with even half a brain and a lot of times even if you don't that you will make money. Look at the prices through history even before this CBA when owners were paying out more with no cost certainty. Look at the number of teams during this CBA that have sold. There were smart rich people willing to buy then and there are smart rich people willing to buy now and it is because they are profitable. Maybe not solely on hockey operations but overall with everything that comes with it.



I'm a loan officer - among other things so I know how this works, and in Arizona in a declining market over the last few years there were many sales below appraised value. An NHL franchise is a lot more complicated with other parts to the purchase. It isn't just a house and land. It usually involves one or more of an arena deal, a cable deal, a minor league franchise, a stadium, etc.



I don't care if they purchase with cash or debt. I want them to do what makes them money. Did you purchase with more debt than the business could sustain? That is what these owners are doing. The NFL has an average debt of about 19% of franchise value. The NHL is at about 48%. NJ is at 144%, Dallas at 126%. Rogers/Bell & Toronto can afford that debt and support it. NJ can't. If you put NJ through BK and wiped out the debt, they are worth a heck of a lot more. They would still generate the same revenue. They actually showed a large operating profit over the life of the CBA. What the heck was the owner doing with the money? What happened that has put them in so much trouble. It isn't a 3% increase in salary percentage.

And I've seen a main argument from people that the owners take all the financial risk. Based on the debt value they don't. The banks are taking the risk. And banks have access to the financials. They wouldn't be lending the money if these businesses weren't profitable. Is every one going to pay off? Probably not, but the majority do. When they don't it is the owner's fault. Usually for mismanaging the NHL team and from operations outside of hockey that makes them not be able to afford the team. (See Hicks & Dallas). Also hugely profitable until recently as he wracked up the debt.



Players do make a lot and have other income because the NHL exists. But what do the owners make on hockey without the NHL players? What would revenue be? There are actually double the billionaires in the world than players I want to watch play NHL hockey. Swap out 30 owners while keeping the NHL players and what happens? Swap out the players and keep the same 30 owners and what happens? I know which league I want to watch and it isn't the same owners.
i think in all your aguments though is lost a certain reality. you are trying to hold the owners to your idea of logic... or maybe the common man's idea of logic. but these are billionare's on huge ego trips

now we look at sports... sports is an entertainment. it doesnt solve world hunger or fix pollution or anything else except provide entertaiment.

the type of entertainment it provides... is glory. it is akin to the collusium fights of yesteryear. It allows us fans to live vicariously through the efforts of the on ice gladiators.

without a WINNING team there is very little entertainment... very little GLORY for the owner either.

There are very very very very very few owners that buy a team expecting to walk away rich from their investments. Those that do... deserve the hell they get. But most owners expect the costs to be 'affordable.'

These are guys with more money then they know what to do with that buy the sports teams. Owning a chain of tire stores doesnt give them glory. So they want a chance to be able to bid on the star players... without going bankrupt.

Until you can grasp what motivates a professional sports owner, you wont be able to create a 'fix' to this lockout that has any chance of working.

Now you do repersent the players side well.. ill give you that. You keep pointing out that with proper revenue sharing there is enough money to trickle it out and for the most part make most the teams managable...

but you fail to understand the owners motives in owning teams when you suggest this fix.

At the end of the day... i argue... that the owners ego will ensure the players get paid a ton anyhow. The last CBA might have been managable if the owners had allowed it to work. But this goes against their human nature. We saw in practice what will happen under any system.

there was a time... 40 years ago... when there was 6 teams and like 3 tv stations... where our culture was very primative... and big business could exploit the workers... where things were different. But this is 2012 now. If the owners ever did actually being to exploit the players, then obviously a competitive league would spring up. If being an owner ever actually did become proftiable... then obviously a competitive league would spring up. We know this to be true.

Its not true now though... the players are being overpaid so much that theres no chance in hell for any rival league to compete. Even the KHL cant keep any of the players the NHL wants. Every player on the face of the earth able to play in the NHL... wants to play in the NHL {except Soderberg}

there is a reason for this... the players have it WAY WAY WAY better here then they do anywhere else.

Now your side of the argument will say that the players are the product... and they are partners... and thus its reasonable for them to have the rights to hijack the NHL for all their demands. But you keep denying that a very large part of the money they are taking is from the taxpayers... and another very large amount is coming form owners loses {not revenues but loses}

if a taxpayer willingly is willing to support the team... and is guaranteed to get what we pay for... then thats one thing. if owners are willingly willing to lose money... thats another thing...

but you are on the side of legislating into a 10 year binding contract... a formula that will need taxpayer dollers to float it... and will guarantee that many teams will continue to lose money unless they spend to the cap floor and somehow still manage to make the playoffs anyhow.

there is another solution to fixing this problem. The owners have around 200 million profit to split between them all to fix the problem but you want the fix to occur with this 200 million leaving none of them much of a profit at all...

the players though are taking home around 1.8 billion. a 33% reduction in their pay would free up 600 million to fix all issues. All teams would make very very healthy profits. And the players would still have 1.2 billion to split between there 700-800 members. They still average over 1.5 mill a year.

Now i tossed out a number way way way larger then the owners are asking for... but I did it for a reason. Just to make a bold point. The players would still average over 1.5 mill a year and the owners would also make alot of money... and the taxpayers could keep our money for things like schools and roads and hospitals instead of a second pool in some players summer cottage.

this is where your argument falls apart for me. I know you treat the numbers you have as gospel. Someone was accusing me of treating my numbers as gospel too. I sure dont. I realize i dont get to see any financial reports.

most teams are owned privately and never release their numbers for the public. I guess the players are allowed to see the records, but they have no legal right to make the info public on private teams... so how does forbes get its info?

Forbes is guessing or using illegal information. I guess theyd be sued if they used illegle info, so Im betting they guess.

When I compare actual sales figures to forbes estimates... the forbes estimates are never very close... but then again thats what happens with buyer/seller deals of this sort anyhow.

there so much ego involved... that the prices often dont make sense economically anyhow. If an owner has a reasonable chance not to go bankrupt... there always seems to be one willing to step in and be the hero. In Edmonton here... Katz and before him the alliance all wanted to step up and be heros. They didnt expect to make a ton of money. They just wanted a chance to be the big man in a small town here. Pockington was a charleton before them... but he too owned the team for ego. The game got too expensive for him so he started selling off the players... but before that he handed out record contracts to the guys cause he loved the ego of having the best team on the planet.

In Toronto when the Bluejays were winning championships... ownership stepped up and had a payroll rivaling the yankees... cause it loved the ego of having a winning team. Owners will spend money if they have a chance to get an ego rush from it.

You might be able to point out 5-10 owners that might seem to put profit ahead of team... the guy in florida seems to... but i can make you 30-40 owners who clearly have no freaking clue how to make money with their teams and just authorize one insane thing after another to stroke their egos instead.

owners arent greedy... they are ego driven. In order to get a CBA that works, you need to satisfy their egos. You have to give them a chance to not go bankrupt while still feeling like they are in the big leagues. Or you have to at the very least guarantee a profit for them cause these are stupid men. they wont lose money AND have no chance at ego rush too.

If... there was any competition for the players to use for leverage... any chance of some... then the owners might have to bow down to your reasonable suggestions for a fix. But there isnt any. The owners will eventually get the deal they want. There is no alternative. The owners are rich enough to wait for it. The deal will be good enough to offset any loses incurred in the meantime. They are willing to go this route if needed.

Trying to force a deal on them that they have zero interest in... just isnt very helpful to the process in the meantime. The players... might be able to lose a season? I guess... I mean I dont know... but its their choice and maybe thats what is going to happen? It sucks cause alot of us taxpayers are paying for their nice arenas that arent being used. We are supporting the casinos and the lotteries. We arent guaranteed anything for our troubles though and dont even get a voice at the table...

but the players have a voice and they are using it right now to refuse to take the contract offered. If the contract offered... actually HURT them then maybe i could understand. But the contract offered is MILES AND MILES AND MILES BETTER then anything else on the planet.

I mean the players are really only using the owners to negotiate against the other owners... thats the ONLY LEVERAGE they have... and one every 6-10 years when a new CBA comes up, the owners negotiate as a group instead of against one another.

Once this deal is signed... the players are in control again and will again use owner against owners... but it wont happen until the deal gets signed.

A loss in total revenues might not hurt the owners 1 single penny. IF costs go down more then revenues then a lockout might not cost the owners 1 single penny. BUT players get paid a % of revenues. A reduction in revenues DIRECTLY hurts the players.

I sure hope they feel this fight is worth it. The owners obviously do. I dont see what the players have to gain COMPARED to what they are GUARANTEED to lose. So i dont personally see why this fight is worth it to the players.

at the very least... offer proposals that have some chance of being considered by the owners for more then 10 mins. Back off this revenue sharing idea that the owners have clearly rejected now. Alot of owners probably wouldnt care about ufa age... about length of contracts... about variance... because they were the ego maniacs doing all that crap anyhow.

if the players give in on the raw dollars to make small market teams viable, then the owners probably have room to negotiate on the other issues.

So make a proposal that has some chance of working... and you still get paid way more then the KHL or swiss league or sweden or germany...

if im wrong... then go start your own league. I dont care. id watch it. I just want my hockey. Whatever league is the best league locally... ill watch. But the evidence ultimately proves itself out whether being a pro league owner is a lucrative experience or not for most owners.

Most owners sell.. citing huge loses... after going to the local goverments for handouts... citing huge loses... then dont buy a second franchise. Unless they win a championship. Winning championships might change things a bit for some. Owners in very large/successful markets are the obvious exception to what im saying. So around 33% of owners are owners of very large/successful markets.

People that try to start rival sport leagues in the last 30 years to get rich... all go broke instead. All teh rival sport leagues have failed. A few Soccor leagues have failed. A couple hockey leagues have failed. A couple football leagues have failed. Even the NBA was in trouble. The NHL had to contract a couple teams... and many more teams had to relocate.

You keep saying its such a licence to print money if a team is run well.. but the evidence is what happens to so many teams... and whats still happening to the bottom 10 or so teams even now under this past cba too.

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline