View Single Post
12-25-2012, 06:31 PM
Registered User
SJeasy's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
Economists are typically hired to estimate the impact of proposals. I haven't been able to find a specific name but if you want I can get back to you on that. Now the number isn't set in stone as a deal hasn't been hammered out yet, but all the things I mentioned apparently add up to 15-20%. 20% just happens to nearly be the exact percentage the players lost in 2004. What a bizarre coincidence...
Here lets do some basic math: In 2004 the players made about 1.494 billion and the revenues were about 1.996 billion. The league had to have around 770 million in other costs in order to equate the overall 273 loss they reported.
The Lockout happened and players share was rolled back by 20%. Todays revenues are reported to be 3.2 billion and player costs have only risen by about 25-30%. This would leave the league a little more than 1.3 billion to cover "other costs". In short the only real way the league could be losing money as a whole is if other costs have basically doubled. BUT ITS ALL THE NHLPA!!!! The owners shouldn't have to contribute or take any responsibility to the partnership they lied to the players about. They shouldn't take any responsibility for horrible decisions like keeping the Yotes in AR when they didn't have to. They should be able to pocket all that fee money and laugh all the way to the bank.
The last time the players made significant successions it didn't seem to help the league. In fact all it did was lead to the league asking for significant cuts as soon as it was able to to do so. Why should the players believe that this time around will be any different? So let me ask again what concessions have the owners made to the players in order to help the overall sustainability of the league?
You are understating the player pay increase. It went from $1.4mil to $2.4mil average. That is a 70% increase in salary. The league went from $2.1bil to $3.3bil. That is a 57% increase. Part of that is the escalation of the cap from 54 to 57%.

The league is also claiming that non-player payroll expenses escalating faster than revenue. I can believe it on health care, electricity, travel (fuel) and insurance. Other categories, not so much.

Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
Oh come on... Do you think they hosted the SAP tournament for free all those years? They manage the arena... They get plenty of revenue from non hockey related activities. Plenty to more than cover the 5 million on average they lose on the Sharks and make a nice profit. They still do need the revenue from the Sharks to make a profit however.
The point is the NHL expanded way too fast. This was the leagues decision to do this and they profited heavily from the fees. Bettman could have instead focused on the 24 teams the NHL had when he was hired, but no... he had to expand. The NHL has the ability to cover some of the mistakes they made, but they are refusing to do so. They want the players to pay for all of it.
The decision to expand was made by the BOG under Ziegler, not Bettman. Bettman was hired with the directive to oversee the expansion. It wasn't his idea, but he was on board with it. Until the last four teams, the expansion locations were pretty much set in stone. I am not sure who was responsible for the last 4 locations, the BOG or GB. Additionally, he did try to save Canadian franchises, but ran into brick walls. He actually succeed with the Oilers but was rebuffed in Winnipeg and QC (no buyers). He actually lobbied to life the restriction on ownership rules to keep the Oil in place.

Last edited by SJeasy: 12-25-2012 at 06:40 PM. Reason: added another correction
SJeasy is offline