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.

NHL HOLDING FANS HOSTAGE(FALSE hope for a deal.)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-24-2005, 02:03 AM
  #26
Iggy-4-50
Registered User
 
Iggy-4-50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 5,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewBreed19
Everything that you have said, is exactly how I feel about this whole thing. It isn't about the fans,it's all about the owners turning a profit. They are taking their bad signings (raising salarys to new hieghts) and then blaming the players for doing so. If the owners were willing to pay those types of salaries; ofcourse the players would except! The owners just don't have to keep doing it, that's why were at this point.
Quit blaming the players and blame the owners for not watching their spending on player salaries.
To blame all the owners is totally wrong,the problem with the NHL and every other pro sport is the disparity of revenues between markets,one retarded owner pays a 40 goal scorer in NY 10m because he has the budget to do so but it makes a team in say Calgary,Edmonton..etc either do the same or lose the player!
The league needs a system to protect itself from itself. (like every other fricking pro sports league)

My proposal:
1) Players give back 20% to start the season
2) Teams MUST spend 28m on salaries
3) Soft cap starts @ 31m
  • 31-35m = .50 cents to cap fund
  • 35-40m = .75 cents to cap fund
  • 40-45m = 1 dollar to cap fund
  • 45-50m = 1.5 dollar to the cap fund

Hard cap set @ 50m or 57% of league revenues (hopefully 57% will grow to over 50m)

TV revenue sharing:
Teams give 50% of their tv revenue to a pot that all teams share equally.

Cap fund:
45% to bottom 10 teams
35% to middle 10 teams
20% to top 10 teams

End of season player bonuses:
Any team not spending 57% on salaries will disperse the profits to the players and local minor hockey. ( i figure 60% to player and 20% to minor hockey and 20% to the owners)


Sign here ____________________


Last edited by Iggy-4-50: 01-24-2005 at 02:13 AM.
Iggy-4-50 is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 03:11 AM
  #27
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewBreed19
Bettmen had a choice not to sign off on the last CBA, it is also his mistake.
No, you're wrong. Bettman didn't sign off on anything. He told the owners not to accept the deal, but they voted for it anyway, 17 to 9. What's he supposed to do, physically restrain the owners from voting?

It's not his fault they did the opposite of what he said, and came to regret it.

Note the low 65% acceptance is why the new rule was put in requiring at least 75% of the owners to agree.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 10:13 AM
  #28
eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: around the 49th para
Posts: 1,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alecfromtherock
Added together the teams salaries were $1,332,974,890 or

63.4% percent of the $2.1 billion NHL revenue

75% of 2,100,000,000 = $1,575,000,000

How many non-salary costs are there for the players? To make the 75% figure correct you would need $242,025,110.

Someone made a comment about air travel costs, hotels and food coming out of the players own pockets, doesn’t the team pay for all of that?

That could easily explain the missing $242 million from the 75% figure.

NHL holding fans hostage? In summer the fans knew there was going to be a lockout, how is that taking a hostage with false hope?

Fans = no part in the lockout whatsoever(even if tickets made $850 million dollars last season(40% total revenue)
Per diem, pension and health insurance costs make up the difference.

eye is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 10:45 AM
  #29
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jericholic19
But he extended the CBA twice. Any commish that allows such a pro-player CBA to continue for so long deserves to be recognized for their flaws. Some business magazines think along the same lines too...
He extended it twice because the owners wanted their expansion fees and they couldn't get them without the CBA. Simple as that.

CarlRacki 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 03:30 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.