HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Very great editorial today in La Presse

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-12-2004, 10:47 AM
  #51
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
The owners need something to protect themselves from other owners that don't give a dam about anything else. That has to be done in the CBA. The CBA must be agreed to with the players. The players will need to allow this change to happen, or teams will go bankrupt (if things are as bad as they say). Regardless, salaries will come down or jobs will be lost.

Again this is not coming from me :

YOU said owners need something to protect themselves from other owners that don't give a dam about anything else

So the players should cave because the owners are not good managers enough to control themselves ?

You just said in your opinions that the best ''MINDS'' of hockey was on it. If they were such good businessman, managing a hockey team wouldn't be a problem because they would do what's best for them regardless of another owner. PLEASE stop talking about the rich teams. There's a lot of SMALL MARKET TEAMS that are very poor in making decisions, it's not the NYR-DET-TOR vs PIT-BUF-NSH. They all made bad decisions for 8 years out of 10.

YOU said The players will need to allow this change to happen, or teams will go bankrupt

Everytime a team was close to bankcruptcy they found another IDIOTS (if NHL was such in a bad shape) to buy the team.

Do you know what 2 owners bought the Buffalo Sabres & the Ottawa Senators ? Because they got it for practically FREE !!! You've got 2 owners that got 2 teams cheaply. If the NHL was a dead-end , Mr.Golisano & Mr.Melnyk ,2 SUCCESSFULL BUSINESS MAN outside of hockey wouldn't touch that with a 1KM pole vault don't you think ?

What make 2 billionnaires interested in buying 2 NHL franchises ?

That's why the players won't allow this change to happen because if the NHL was such in a bad shape, BUFFALO & OTTAWA would have been contracted for goods because no one would be interested in these 2 teams if the experts around Mr.Melnyk & Mr.Golisano weren't sure that ''with good management & good accountability'' these 2 NHL teams can make money or at least going EVEN.

Did you see here that I didn't talk for one single second about UFA's, RFA's, Draft contracts, arbitration. I'm simply talking about logic of economic businesses.

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
09-12-2004, 11:03 AM
  #52
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
What if for most owners, an NHL franchises is just a toy. They are rich & successfull & when they takeover the team all they want to do is having fun with it & winning. The team would just be a PR showing to show that they can afford a BIG TOY like an NHL team..
That is a big if. Do you know for a fact that most owners treat their team like a toy? If a handful of owners do treat their team like a toy, why do the rest of the owners have to lose money because of the ones that want to treat their teams as toys? If most of the owners did treat their teams as toys, we wouldn't be having a lock out, would we? All the owners would be sitting in front of their fireplaces, drinking their 30 year old scotch, laughing about how much they lost each year. I don't get the impression they are doing anything like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
Also YOU NAILED IT , if the owners would have put their best managements staff like they did with their ''REAL'' companies, we wouldn't talk about the CBA because it would have been renewed..
Do you work in a large company? Or more specifically, do you work for a company that is a reletively small part of a large conglomorate? I do. Do you know how often every company of a conglomerate is audited each year to ensure good business decisions are being made? Do you know how quickly the CEO's of these conglomerates want changes when any company under them is losing money? Even when they are making record profits, large conglomerates want every business unit making a profit. While there is little doubt some teams are not managed well, that is a conscious decision by the head of that conglomerate. Most however, would be expected to follow good business practices.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
No i'm not, this CBA has 10 YEARS OLD & the owners in concert with the GM, starting reading it after 8 YEARS !!! Does that sound good management to you ? Does ot sound like the best MINDS of hockey was on it ? .
You have sat in on meetings with the NHL executives over the previous 10 years and this is why you know that the GM's didn't read the CBA for the first 8 years?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
For the first 8 YEARS of the actual CBA, not a single GM's thought about the advantages a franchise is having in that CBA. They start thinking about it when they were in a dangerous financial situations. Does that sound good management to you ? Does ot sound like the best MINDS of hockey was on it ? .
Again, you know what the best minds in hockey were thinking? Please teach me how you do this mind reading trick...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
While maybe this is where you can blame the PLAYERS for this but the NHLPA took what they had on their side & used it to get good contracts. THIS IS GOOD MANAGEMENTS, THIS IS GOOD ACCOUNTABILITY. NHLPA did their homework with the CBA starting in 1994 while the NHL owners/gm sleep on it until 2002 & manage their with business as usual.

You seem to think you are much smarter than all the owners and GM's in the NHL. Why don't you go to their next board meeting and tell them how easily you can fix all their problems so we can have hockey this season...

Where the owners did screw up is not putting something in place in the last CBA to keep every owner from making decisions that was bad for the league, things like raising individual team salaries and accepting huge losses. This is bad for all the other teams in the NHL that can't accept those losses, but have to field a competetive team. Should they have been smart enough to anticipate that some owners would do this in the future? Maybe, maybe not. It's kind of easy to sit here now and look back how things could have been done better.

djhn579 is offline  
Old
09-12-2004, 11:14 AM
  #53
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
YOU said owners need something to protect themselves from other owners that don't give a dam about anything else

So the players should cave because the owners are not good managers enough to control themselves ?

You just said in your opinions that the best ''MINDS'' of hockey was on it. If they were such good businessman, managing a hockey team wouldn't be a problem because they would do what's best for them regardless of another owner. PLEASE stop talking about the rich teams. There's a lot of SMALL MARKET TEAMS that are very poor in making decisions, it's not the NYR-DET-TOR vs PIT-BUF-NSH. They all made bad decisions for 8 years out of 10.
Yes I said that. I also said for it has to be negotiated into a CBA. If it wasn't, it would be called collusion, which is illegal.

Should the players that have been the benificiaries of the imbalance created by a few owners, cave? If the alternative is losing teams (which also means losing NHLPA jobs), yes. And why does it have to be considered caving? The job of any union is to protect workers from unsafe work environments and make sure they are not being unduly exploited (being forced to work for low wages). I don't think the roll of unions was to exploit the present business situation to the point where they will lose jobs. That is not a very smart business practice.


The NHLPA knows that they can exploit the current situation, that's why they don't want a salary cap. They just want more money regardless of what the consequenses are for the fans (lost leams does effect fans, especially in the cities that lose teams...) or the owners. That is called being greedy. They would hardly be underpaid under a salary cap.

djhn579 is offline  
Old
09-12-2004, 11:29 AM
  #54
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
That is a big if. Do you know for a fact that most owners treat their team like a toy? If a handful of owners do treat their team like a toy, why do the rest of the owners have to lose money because of the ones that want to treat their teams as toys? If most of the owners did treat their teams as toys, we wouldn't be having a lock out, would we? All the owners would be sitting in front of their fireplaces, drinking their 30 year old scotch, laughing about how much they lost each year. I don't get the impression they are doing anything like that.
Again, read yourself, you are TALKING about OWNER vs OWNER , how does it related to the players giving everything they won in the CBA ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Do you work in a large company? Or more specifically, do you work for a company that is a reletively small part of a large conglomorate? I do. Do you know how often every company of a conglomerate is audited each year to ensure good business decisions are being made? Do you know how quickly the CEO's of these conglomerates want changes when any company under them is losing money? Even when they are making record profits, large conglomerates want every business unit making a profit. While there is little doubt some teams are not managed well, that is a conscious decision by the head of that conglomerate. Most however, would be expected to follow good business practices.
Again, read yourself, you are TALKING about OWNER vs OWNER , how does it related to the players giving everything they won in the CBA ?

A lot of companies that follows the same routes as many others failed in the past because so many managers got a way to think ''If it work for them, it can work for us'' & you have other managers that think ''What can I do to make it work for my company''

It's maybe tough to follow but that's the difference between the San Jose Sharks & the Buffalo Sabres.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
You have sat in on meetings with the NHL executives over the previous 10 years and this is why you know that the GM's didn't read the CBA for the first 8 years?
Well do simple logic analysis.

1st time a GM let go a players for not qualifying a superstar ? Summer 2003 : Paul Kariya. This rule exist since 1994 !!!

1st time a GM let go a rookie for not qualifying him ? 2003 ? This rule exist since 1994

1st time a GM let go a player after winning an arbitration ? 2003 : Bryan Berard. This rule exist since 1994 !

What bothering me with you is that you expect me to challenge all your question when you don't do yourself your own homework. You just believe what the owners said & you are content/satisfy with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Again, you know what the best minds in hockey were thinking? Please teach me how you do this mind reading trick...
There no's real answer to that question. If Wal-Mart got success with their way of doing it, that doesn't mean Target will succeed by doing/copy the same concept.

You need to understand that a GM can be good in evaluating talent but what if like Andre Savard he's so bad in the financial aspect of the franchise ? Don't blame the players for it, that GM was incompetent for giving contract.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
You seem to think you are much smarter than all the owners and GM's in the NHL. Why don't you go to their next board meeting and tell them how easily you can fix all their problems so we can have hockey this season...
I'm not SMARTER & I don't think I am smarter than anyone.

What I do know is that most owner of a sports franchise , they don't manage those entity like they manage their ''real'' companies. They only care about winning & I don't talk about the rich teams only.

I'm just saying what you think I'm defending the players that I'm only talking about management & accountability : Owners didn't do their homework or didn't care about it since the last 2 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Where the owners did screw up is not putting something in place in the last CBA to keep every owner from making decisions that was bad for the league, things like raising individual team salaries and accepting huge losses. This is bad for all the other teams in the NHL that can't accept those losses, but have to field a competetive team. Should they have been smart enough to anticipate that some owners would do this in the future? Maybe, maybe not. It's kind of easy to sit here now and look back how things could have been done better.
Making good & bad decision is part of being a business manager. If you can't be responsible for your bad decisions, why would someone else be responsible for it.

I'm not looking back, I'm talking about relating the past to the present that the owners & the GM are more prepared today. Ziggy Palffy 3 years ago with the same STATS would have been given 9,000,000$ maybe 10M$ without any regrets for that franchise to give him. Today he's having a hard time getting 6-7M$ . Maybe to you , it's only the results of not having a CBA but just read what GM's said & learn from the past that a 9M$ players no matter how good he can be, will only be a handicap to build a franchise instead of making the franchise progress.

Martin StLouis after winning the Hart-Art Ross would have receive 9-10M$ without any hesitation from the FANS & the GM'S. Today he will have a hard time getting 7M$.

Again , you expect me to challenge you with my answer when all you do is regurgitating the same old answers that does not even related to the side (OWNERS vs PLAYERS)
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
We need to find a way for the owner to controls what the other owners do
After that you insult me by telling me , I'm just saying the same thing over & over. please !

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
09-12-2004, 11:33 AM
  #55
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Yes I said that. I also said for it has to be negotiated into a CBA. If it wasn't, it would be called collusion, which is illegal.
Do you know what COLLUSION is ?

Even if you do know, which I don't think you know, how to prove it is another story.

Did you hear recently the PLAYERS talking about collusions because NO SUPERSTARS can get a decent contract ? Please you are talking about a BIG WORD to scare without knowing the consequence & the way to prove such things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
Should the players that have been the benificiaries of the imbalance created by a few owners, cave? If the alternative is losing teams (which also means losing NHLPA jobs), yes. And why does it have to be considered caving? The job of any union is to protect workers from unsafe work environments and make sure they are not being unduly exploited (being forced to work for low wages). I don't think the roll of unions was to exploit the present business situation to the point where they will lose jobs. That is not a very smart business practice.
Again 2 teams was supposing to go bankruptcy, did you see some job losses ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
The NHLPA knows that they can exploit the current situation, that's why they don't want a salary cap. They just want more money regardless of what the consequenses are for the fans (lost leams does effect fans, especially in the cities that lose teams...) or the owners. That is called being greedy. They would hardly be underpaid under a salary cap.
You're not mature enough to have a conversation, I'm sorry. believe everything you read in the cbanews.com.

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
09-12-2004, 11:38 AM
  #56
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
Do you know what COLLUSION is ?

Even if you do know, which I don't think you know, how to prove it is another story.

Did you hear recently the PLAYERS talking about collusions because NO SUPERSTARS can get a decent contract ? Please you are talking about a BIG WORD to scare without knowing the consequence & the way to prove such things.



Again 2 teams was supposing to go bankruptcy, did you see some job losses ?



You're not mature enough to have a conversation, I'm sorry. believe everything you read in the cbanews.com.

Thanks. Nice talking to you. We'll just have to see how everything works out...

Edit: I don't think someone that has insulted everyone that disagree's with him has the right to play the "mature enough to have a conversation" card...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
Innocent meaning they don't think before they talk, before they do something.
http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=102737

Not to mention, I have visited the CBANEWS.com site once in my life. Again, you think you know everything...


Last edited by djhn579: 09-12-2004 at 12:07 PM.
djhn579 is offline  
Old
09-14-2004, 09:36 AM
  #57
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 131,296
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
The NHLPA knows that they can exploit the current situation, that's why they don't want a salary cap. They just want more money regardless of what the consequenses are for the fans (lost leams does effect fans, especially in the cities that lose teams...) or the owners. That is called being greedy. They would hardly be underpaid under a salary cap.
They want more money? Is this why they're the ones offering concessions on their own binding contracts which they signed because the owners game them the money? Maybe the players want the owners to admit to their own mistakes instead of putting the onus on the players?

If someone offered you $7 mill more a year than what you're worth like Bobby Holik you sure as hell aren't thinking about being greedy. The Devils offered around the same number so it's not like he was demanding as much.


Lost teams does effect fans, if you take a team from a market that doesn't support your team to a market you know will (Winnipeg), you're going to make more money just by putting fans in the seats.

GKJ is offline  
Old
09-14-2004, 10:33 AM
  #58
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,408
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
Lost teams does effect fans, if you take a team from a market that doesn't support your team to a market you know will (Winnipeg), you're going to make more money just by putting fans in the seats.

Not necessarily.

An owner could likely make more money drawing 14,000 fans a night in Miami than he could drawing 19,000 fans a night in Winnipeg.

#1. All revenues are generated in Cdn. $$$$, while the majority of expenses will be paid In Amer. $$$$

#2. taxes are generall much, much lower in the US than Canada.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
09-14-2004, 10:47 AM
  #59
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 131,296
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Not necessarily.

An owner could likely make more money drawing 14,000 fans a night in Miami than he could drawing 19,000 fans a night in Winnipeg.

#1. All revenues are generated in Cdn. $$$$, while the majority of expenses will be paid In Amer. $$$$

#2. taxes are generall much, much lower in the US than Canada.
meh, i forgot to consider the Canadian dollar.


Well let's say if they moved to Hartford, Milwalkee, etc.

GKJ is offline  
Old
09-14-2004, 04:31 PM
  #60
likea
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 599
vCash: 500
the Pittsburgh Penguins ARE NOT one of the teams talked about in the 6 teams losing 76% of the money the NHL suggested it lost last season...

if you look at the Levitts report the Pens are the team that lost the least that year

since Mario has owned the team the Pens have made money or broke even for the first 3 years, not alot but some, then the next 2 years when they started to decline the lost money but only somewhere around 3-5 million

the Pens have been very honest about what the lost this year and the year before and both times they stated it was below or about 5 million

I'm not sure where some of you get your information but the Pens are the one team that actually runs its team like business...which is the reason we sold off players, because we could not afford to pay the 5-11 million the all wanted

likea is offline  
Old
09-14-2004, 04:36 PM
  #61
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 131,296
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by likea
the Pittsburgh Penguins ARE NOT one of the teams talked about in the 6 teams losing 76% of the money the NHL suggested it lost last season...

if you look at the Levitts report the Pens are the team that lost the least that year

since Mario has owned the team the Pens have made money or broke even for the first 3 years, not alot but some, then the next 2 years when they started to decline the lost money but only somewhere around 3-5 million

the Pens have been very honest about what the lost this year and the year before and both times they stated it was below or about 5 million

I'm not sure where some of you get your information but the Pens are the one team that actually runs its team like business...which is the reason we sold off players, because we could not afford to pay the 5-11 million the all wanted
Yeah, I mentioned them before, and I just saw the Forbes report today. They still have a terrible arena lease.

GKJ is offline  
Old
09-14-2004, 05:55 PM
  #62
sabresfan65
Vegas HAS Hockey!!
 
sabresfan65's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vegas
Country: United States
Posts: 1,346
vCash: 500
I find it hard to believe that people can't see that the worst things in the CBA are the qualifying offers and arbitration. These two aspects are what have pushed salaries to their current levels. The idea that one owner can sign a player for x dollars and make every other owner than pay more for his players or not have those players is idiotic. I understand that one players salary will always affect anothers but there is no limit currently placed on these high spending owners so they can continue to spiral the salaries out of control. By putting a cap in place, it would force every team to play by the same rules. Something that is currently not the case. If you think that the teams are playing by the same rules you are mistaken. I think that what some of the owners want is to create a system where each team has controled expenses. This will allow teams to come down to management decisions, not financial ones.

Was it a good idea for the Sabres to get rid of Dominik Hasek?

Let's look at that for a moment from a purely hockey perspective. Were they better team without him, no. From a hockey perspective it would have been better to attempt to add a couple of players (after not having to have gotten rid of Micheal Peca the year before) and try to make another run to the Stanley Cup. This was not a viable option because of the economic restraints that are in place for teams like the Sabres. Hasek wasn't happy because the Sabres weren't adding players so he forced a trade which the Sabres recieved nowhere near equal value. This was a trade which came about because of monetary reasons something some teams rarely if ever have to make.

People talk about the idea of walking away from arbitraiton rulings or not offering the qualifying offers. Where do those teams than get their players? Do you think quality players are availble on the cheap?

I think a luxary tax is viable under certain conditions.

1) Tax is 50% or more over certain values with the percentage going up as the amount over the cap goes up.
2) Entry level deals are not guarenteed and a minimum of 5 years. This will allow teams to get rid of players who haven't lived up to expectations. Any player who is not an NHL regular by the end of their entry level contract would become an UFA.
3) Player get free agency at 10 years of professional service or 30 years of age
4) RFA would give players the option of going to arbitration for a contract which would run them through UFA and be non-guarenteed, or negotiate with the team for a guarenteed contract. Any arbitration ruling can be converted to a guarenteed contract through negotiation with the current club.
5) Relax the compensation rules for RFA so that there actually is something as RFA.
6) All players who sign free agent contracts with a new team have non-guarenteed contracts. If you sign a contract with your current team it is guarenteed. Trade the possibility of big bucks for security.

Do I think this idea will fly? I don't know. But I do think that it addresses some of the problems with the current CBA.

sabresfan65 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:25 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.