HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Anyone paying attention to NFL reports??

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-27-2004, 05:03 PM
  #1
Benji Frank
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,650
vCash: 500
Anyone paying attention to NFL reports??

I'm not a big follower, but it looks like their contract is up soon & if I'm reading this article right, it seems like the players union does not want to enter into a situation where there is no cap!!

http://www.tsn.ca/nfl/news_story.asp?id=102883

I'd guess they realize that without the cap, the top 8 teams would just get stronger while a chunk of the bottom 24 would fade away......

I wonder if Goodenow & co. have done the math on how many players would become AHL'ers once a half dozen or so teams fold....... maybe now is the time for Bobby to realize a cap may be necessary & could be agreed to as long as revenue sharing is to the players association's satisfaction. Suddenly the ball would be back in the players favour and the public would be slinging darts at the wealthiest of owners who're refusing revenue sharing...........

JMO.

Benji Frank is offline  
Old
10-27-2004, 05:47 PM
  #2
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 35,759
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benji Frank
I'm not a big follower, but it looks like their contract is up soon & if I'm reading this article right, it seems like the players union does not want to enter into a situation where there is no cap!!

http://www.tsn.ca/nfl/news_story.asp?id=102883

I'd guess they realize that without the cap, the top 8 teams would just get stronger while a chunk of the bottom 24 would fade away......
That has very little to do with it. Players in the NFL like the system because it gives them big paydays in the way of signing bonuses, and the rampant cutting allows them to move around quickly and easily when need be, which is beneficial in a sport where the players have shorter careers. Also, the NFL players currently get 65% of the league's revenue, which is a lot lower than the NHL is offering.

Incidentally, can the NHL explain just why they need their revenue percentage number about 10 percent below that of the NBA or NFL? If salaries are tied to revenues and the other league's can make a profit at 65% why can't the NHL? Do they run their franchises that inefficiently?

Epsilon is online now  
Old
10-27-2004, 05:55 PM
  #3
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon
Incidentally, can the NHL explain just why they need their revenue percentage number about 10 percent below that of the NBA or NFL? If salaries are tied to revenues and the other league's can make a profit at 65% why can't the NHL?
Its called negotiating. Right now its at 75%, they want 65%, so they start the bidding at 55%. Same as the $30 million cap. Theres no way the league seriously thinks they will get that. Its their lowball 1st offer.

But since the PA doesnt want to discuss %, then its pointless.

Cawz is offline  
Old
10-27-2004, 06:04 PM
  #4
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,498
vCash: 500
if i had to guess id have to say that revunue for the nhl is lower than that of the nfl but costs are higher. think about it. NFL 16 games, only 8 road games...less travel expenses. nhl over 40 road games that aint cheap. so of course the nhl would need a higher percentage of its revenue than the nfl would

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon
That has very little to do with it. Players in the NFL like the system because it gives them big paydays in the way of signing bonuses, and the rampant cutting allows them to move around quickly and easily when need be, which is beneficial in a sport where the players have shorter careers. Also, the NFL players currently get 65% of the league's revenue, which is a lot lower than the NHL is offering.

Incidentally, can the NHL explain just why they need their revenue percentage number about 10 percent below that of the NBA or NFL? If salaries are tied to revenues and the other league's can make a profit at 65% why can't the NHL? Do they run their franchises that inefficiently?

txomisc is offline  
Old
10-27-2004, 06:33 PM
  #5
Dr Love
Registered User
 
Dr Love's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Location, Location!
Posts: 20,378
vCash: 500
Their contract isn't up until 2007, yet they've been talking since April. Meanwhile the NHL and NHLPA sit on their ass. Thanks guys.

Dr Love is offline  
Old
10-27-2004, 06:47 PM
  #6
Benji Frank
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon
That has very little to do with it. Players in the NFL like the system because it gives them big paydays in the way of signing bonuses, and the rampant cutting allows them to move around quickly and easily when need be, which is beneficial in a sport where the players have shorter careers. Also, the NFL players currently get 65% of the league's revenue, which is a lot lower than the NHL is offering.

Incidentally, can the NHL explain just why they need their revenue percentage number about 10 percent below that of the NBA or NFL? If salaries are tied to revenues and the other league's can make a profit at 65% why can't the NHL? Do they run their franchises that inefficiently?
I guess I should have researched it a little better before I jumped to a conclusion....

As for your query, it's most likely as a result of fixed costs as a % of total revenues.... fixed costs are eating up a bigger chunk of the % of NHL revenues since they don't have the monster TV and advertising deals NFL has. As the article points out, NFL revenues are approaching 6 Billion $$$'s. I'd venture to guess the NHL might be somewhere near 40% of that leaving much less to cover overhead..........

Benji Frank is offline  
Old
10-28-2004, 08:58 PM
  #7
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,270
vCash: 500
Their revenues are rising to astronomical levels. Their fixed costs are fixed. So are players salaries fixed.

Some interesting lines in that article

Quote:
Union boss Gene Upshaw told NFL owners Wednesday he believes eight powerful teams have obtained an unfair advantage over the other 24
How do teams get an unfair advantage in the perfect league with revenue sharing and a hard cap. Have they found loopholes?

Quote:
``Now we have eight haves and 24 have-nots and the haves are getting a discount on everything.''
Isnt that the point of the cap. Allow the rich teams to rake it in so the poor teams can compete? Now what, the players are asking for a share of that money because its not fair the owners keep all those profits. Maybe they should of though of that before they caved.

Quote:
Under the current agreement, there will be no salary cap for the 2007 season.
Interesting.

Quote:
``The union is using published information on gross revenues, and we are looking at net income,'' Houston's Bob McNair said. `
Surely they arent having problems defining the revenues are they?


Quote:
``We don't have that much time, because if we actually get to that uncapped year, it's over,'' Upshaw said. ``We'll never get the cap back once it goes away.''
He fears having no cap? Football players must have little real value. This is a hard statement to comprehend.

Its interesting that basketball, baseball, and football unions are all looking for changes in their CBAs in the coming few years. Hockey players may be making a big precedent. But even the leagues whose CBAs we want to emulate, are having problems with them and want changes.

If we got any of those other CBAs, the complaining wont stop. The owners will never have solved their problems. Giving in wont stop the fighting.



---

NFL cap a joke

Quote:

In practice, of course, the salary cap has been shot full of holes, almost as many holes as the NBAís cap.

From the playersí perspective, it has produced a system in which the stars receive an even more disproportionate share of the pie than ever, whereas the above-average veterans who have gradually worked their way into the middle of the salary range are sacrificed in favor of cheaper, marginal players. Itís survival of the fittest, but often even those who deserve to survive donít.

From the standpoint of establishing a level playing field, thatís a joke too the amount of money each club spends on player salaries bears little resemblance to the salary cap.

Level playing field? Hah.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 05:35 AM
  #8
Crossbar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 48" above the ice
Posts: 5,114
vCash: 500
Miami Dolphins take

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/h...ports-panthers

Here is an article on what some of the Miami Dolphin players think about a salary cap for the NHL.

Crossbar is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 10:27 AM
  #9
fan mao rong
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: port royal , pa
Posts: 968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossbar
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/h...ports-panthers

Here is an article on what some of the Miami Dolphin players think about a salary cap for the NHL.
The Florida article says that the average NFL salary is $1.3 million.

fan mao rong is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 12:17 PM
  #10
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,270
vCash: 500
Quote:
But our union has done a good job creating some benefits for us. So you may not see it coming [via] salary, but we have long-term benefits like a 401K and retirement plan [and annuity plan] to protect us."
Quote:
"After studying it the last couple years, I think [the salary cap's] a good system and I like what we've done," said Konrad, the Dolphins' union representative. "You have to get past the accounting of professional teams, but I own a business and business is business. You're in business to turn a profit, and if you're losing monies and there's negative revenue, what you're doing isn't right on either the labor or management side.

"So I think the cap is fair as long as it's regulated and as long as it's moved percentagewise with the revenues that are coming in."

Konrad said, "I just feel for these guys because I know many hockey players and they're not happy about [the lockout]. I know the players are hoping they can come out of this with some sort of fair agreement."

Madison added, "Hopefully hockey gets it together because all the years that hockey's been going without a cap and then all of a sudden, `Boom, you're getting a salary cap,' I know it's tough for players to accept. But it's paying off for us."

Well that was some very thoughtful points in this article. It was very worth reading thanks for the link. Its one of the few times they have made a case that made me rethink.

Those are some tough choices. In return for the cap, players are taken care of financially with long term benefits and pension plans? An interesting trade off. If its inevitable. If they are willing to concede. If the players have had enough reflection time.

I still question their assertion that it is because of the parity they have created that they have the great revenue and fan interest. That has always been there, and then they got a windfall television deal on top of it allowing as Saskin said for extraordinary revenue sharing. Im unconvinced that simply making all teams equal would increase attendance and interest. If they get to that level as the NFL did, perhaps then they adopt their model.

But Konrad makes some interesting points. Perhaps if the trade off is good enough, they can get past the cap. It is worth thinking about for the players. Maybe its a compelling case. Maybe they can accept a trade off.

But I still think there has to be acknowldgement of some things we should consider guarding against as is so well poionted out in some of these links. If we are going to adopt that method, lets fully explore and appreciate all the current consequences.


Like this:
NFL Cap Blows
Quote:
The NFL salary cap still blows.

This is an unscientific opinion, delivered without the assistance of a certified capologist or even a glossary of "designated franchise player" terms. The salary cap blows. Its implementation in the NFL's offseason extends to football fans all the salutary benefits of a grenade lobbed into an outhouse.

And this week simply smells. It isn't about football in the slightest. It's about roster-wrecking. It's about money, a subject which is interesting usually only when 1) it's yours that we're talking about and 2) you're making it in such bucket-loads that you actually need advice on what to do with it all.

This has to be the most depressing week on the NFL calendar. For every player decision that even remotely appears to have football performance factored in, there seem to be a fat handful in which football was the last thing considered, if it was considered at all.

or this one
Quote:
And here's parity in a nutshell for anyone who is an actual fan of an actual team, as opposed to being a fan of "the league": You love that guy, the cornerback? Don't get too attached to him. He's got a roster bonus coming up, which means he's out of here.

The saddest part of being a fan? That's easy: John Randle and the Minnesota Vikings.

You know who Randle is; he's brilliant - and he is a Viking. Can't imagine it any other way. Yet partly because Randle refused to restructure his contract and partly because the Vikes were ballooning so far over the cap they needed to jettison luggage just to see it, Randle is out. And just for good measure, Vikes fans, they released Randle's backup, too.

But the point isn't that Minnesota is doing it wrong, it's that the NFL's use of the cap to promote parity is patently ludicrous. The NBA has a salary cap, too, but it bends its rules drastically in favor of the home team being able to re-sign its best and most revered players. In the NFL, the Seattle Seahawks look at their top two receivers from last season (Sean Dawkins and Derrick Mayes , study the numbers for a while and - bling bling! - send 'em packing.
and things like this
Quote:
It is hard to say what the league gets out of this whole proposition besides relative cost certainty and the opportunity to spin its dubious "any given Sunday" theorem ad infinitum. What the hometown fans get, on the other hand, is crystal clear: They're down to rooting for the laundry. Why? Because they have almost no idea who might be occupying it from season to season.

And i think we undervalue this perspective
The Downside of Parity

Quote:
The other leagues are supposed to be jealous.

The NFL hails parity as a way to keep the casual fan interested
But to hell with parity - I miss the juggernauts. I miss watching teams dominate the regular season, creating a playoff atmosphere dripping with anticipation and the chance for eternal grid-iron glory. Those playoff games were events, match-ups of incredible teams that could give rise to that other d-word, dynasty. Dynasties, or the threat of them, make the playoffs that much more enticing.

And I'm not that picky. I don't need a team to win the whole enchilada every year. I just want prolonged excellence. The Purple People Eaters, the K-Gun Offense - they both failed in four Super Bowls, but I'll take any of it these days. Dynasties brought you the Immaculate Reception, the West Coast Offense, and the NFL's all-time leading rusher. Love them or hate them, great teams are exciting. They bring out passion, fervor, exhilaration. They bring you the NFL we know and love.

Parity, on the other hand, has brought you ... well, it's brought you this year's NFL.

The problem, of course, is that it's symptomatic of mediocrity - everybody gets their eight wins because nobody is any good. It means there are no juggernaut match-ups, no unplug-the-phone games to anticipate and savor. No NFL that we know and love.

No NFL that we know and love. Is at a real concern? Is there something here we should consider?

thinkwild is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 01:29 PM
  #11
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,596
vCash: 500
Over the cap

is over the Cap. I mean, if you max out your credit cards in one month, you're eventually going to have to pay it back sooner or later, which means in the next couple of months you're going to have to cut back on some of your wants and just spend on the essentials.

That's how the NFL system works. If you overspend in 1 year, you'll have to make up for it down the road. The 49ers and Cowboys went through it after their championship years and in a couple of seasons the Redskins will be in Salary Cap Hell.

Street Hawk is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 10:26 PM
  #12
Randall Graves*
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 18,622
vCash: 500
Thats because they realize whats at stake, the NHL and NHLPA know it has a loyal overall base(so does football).

I wonder how much attendance will be effected, I doubt it will in Canada or the northeast teams.

Bettman should be fired and Goodenow should jump off a cliff.

Randall Graves* is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 10:34 PM
  #13
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon
Incidentally, can the NHL explain just why they need their revenue percentage number about 10 percent below that of the NBA or NFL? If salaries are tied to revenues and the other league's can make a profit at 65% why can't the NHL? Do they run their franchises that inefficiently?
Easy to explain: profit comes after paying fixed and variable costs. The fixed costs stay the same, regardless of the revenues you bring in (well they might rise a bit, but not anywhere as close to revenues).

Here's a quick numbered example: (not true numbers)

NHL:
Revenues - $2B
Fixed costs - $400M
Left to pay for variable costs, player costs and profit: $1.6B (80%)

NFL:
Revenues - $6B
Fixed costs - $600M
Left to pay for variable costs, player costs and profit: $5.2B (90%)

As you can see, the NFL could allocate a larger portion of the revenues to players without truncating their profits.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
10-30-2004, 10:39 PM
  #14
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
Their revenues are rising to astronomical levels. Their fixed costs are fixed. So are players salaries fixed.

Some interesting lines in that article

How do teams get an unfair advantage in the perfect league with revenue sharing and a hard cap. Have they found loopholes?

Isnt that the point of the cap. Allow the rich teams to rake it in so the poor teams can compete? Now what, the players are asking for a share of that money because its not fair the owners keep all those profits. Maybe they should of though of that before they caved.
---

NFL cap a joke
I am shocked... a union that is complaining... really surprising...

As for the article you're pointing at, the "bad" consequences are mostly a result of the non-guaranteed contracts, not of the cap itself.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
10-31-2004, 07:32 PM
  #15
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,270
vCash: 500
So then you agree with the NFL players that non-guaranteed contracts are bad. THey are needed for a cap. And not even Bettman is proposing getting rid of them.

I can see the NFLPA being a bit defensive about Goodenows comments that many in their union have expressed dislike of the cap. And as a member of the union exec he feels an obligation to stand up for themselves.

But even if they have learned to live with a lot of these problems, does hockey have to? I find some of the things brought up in the links i did something to worry about and try to ensure doesnt happen here.

Why are they worrying about teams having an unfair advantage if they have perfect revenue sharing, salary cap, and windfall tv contract with an uncontested tv time slot all their own now part of american culture?

thinkwild 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 03:10 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.