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
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.

Billionaires Vs. Millionaires

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-05-2005, 06:08 PM
  #1
pei fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,536
vCash: 500
Billionaires Vs. Millionaires

Of all the comments that show to me some people just don't get it, the
billionaire vs. millionaire argument is the one that drives me crazy.
First of all the NHL made the millionaires.
The NHL didn't make any of the owners billionaires.
Although the league probably made a few players centi millionaires.
There are very few billionaire owners in the league.
More and more the teams are being financed by banks who are losing patience
with the economic model in the NHL.
Owners that have made money are getting a return on their investment-they
take a financial risk(many have lost money) and deserve a return.
The billionaires OWN the NHL(FACT).
North America's economic model is capitalism.

pei fan is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 06:52 AM
  #2
Crazy Lunatic
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pei fan
Of all the comments that show to me some people just don't get it, the
billionaire vs. millionaire argument is the one that drives me crazy.
First of all the NHL made the millionaires.
The NHL didn't make any of the owners billionaires.
Although the league probably made a few players centi millionaires.
There are very few billionaire owners in the league.
More and more the teams are being financed by banks who are losing patience
with the economic model in the NHL.
Owners that have made money are getting a return on their investment-they
take a financial risk(many have lost money) and deserve a return.
The billionaires OWN the NHL(FACT).
North America's economic model is capitalism.
What exactly is your point?

 
Old
02-06-2005, 03:21 PM
  #3
pei fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy Lunatic
What exactly is your point?
My point is that you can't blame the owners for being billionaires and you can't
call them greedy for protecting their investments.You can call the players
greedy for wanting ridiculous somes of money and you can claim they are
dangerously close to killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

pei fan is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 03:35 PM
  #4
Vladiator
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New Zealand
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 658
vCash: 500
It is owners' fault that they signed contracts giving away millions to players. No one forced them to do it. But well, they wanted those players and they agreed to pay them that money.

So, I don't see why the owners and some supporters are complaining now. Would you be happy if your employer decided to lower your salary before the expiration of your contract? It doesn't matter how rediculars your salary is - the employer should not have signed it if he thought it was too much.

Vladiator is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 03:53 PM
  #5
krandor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 78
vCash: 500
The only reduction in current salaries on contract are those reductions that were offered by the players. If the players agree to cost certainly, I'm sure they can get the rollbacks removed from the CBA.

krandor is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 06:09 PM
  #6
Toonces
The beer kitty
 
Toonces's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 3,678
vCash: 500
Both sides deserve to be brought in front of a firing squad...

Toonces is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 06:16 PM
  #7
Crazy Lunatic
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pei fan
My point is that you can't blame the owners for being billionaires and you can't
call them greedy for protecting their investments.You can call the players
greedy for wanting ridiculous somes of money and you can claim they are
dangerously close to killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
In that case, I agree.

 
Old
02-06-2005, 06:22 PM
  #8
leaflover
New hope
 
leaflover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: beautiful B.C
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,947
vCash: 825
I'm surprised the business board is still so active,the seasons gone.The NHL doesnt appear interested in admitting that but it is.They're like a little kid that refuses to accept reality,closing their eyes,sticking their fingers in their ears and loudly repeating blah blah blah.

leaflover is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 06:25 PM
  #9
krandor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 78
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leaflover
I'm surprised the business board is still so active,the seasons gone.The NHL doesnt appear interested in admitting that but it is.They're like a little kid that refuses to accept reality,closing their eyes,sticking their fingers in their ears and loudly repeating blah blah blah.
Even if it is gone, by not announcing it they can still have meeting and try to get a deal in place for next year. Once they cancle the season there will be no more meeting for 6 months or more.

krandor is offline  
Old
02-06-2005, 07:46 PM
  #10
Hawker14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,017
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pei fan
Of all the comments that show to me some people just don't get it, the
billionaire vs. millionaire argument is the one that drives me crazy.
First of all the NHL made the millionaires.
The NHL didn't make any of the owners billionaires.
Although the league probably made a few players centi millionaires.
There are very few billionaire owners in the league.
More and more the teams are being financed by banks who are losing patience
with the economic model in the NHL.
Owners that have made money are getting a return on their investment-they
take a financial risk(many have lost money) and deserve a return.
The billionaires OWN the NHL(FACT).
North America's economic model is capitalism.

here's an interesting link to dispute your "very few billionaire owners in the league" argument. http://ordinaryleastsquare.typepad.c...ss_new_bo.html

also why does anyone "deserve" a return on investment when taking a financial risk ? one thing often overlooked is that franchise values have gone up along with player salaries. just because teams may not be making a profit doesn't mean they are not building equity in their investment.

when you invest in the stock market, do u plan to make your money from the stock going up, or dividends from profits ?

Hawker14 is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 10:33 AM
  #11
pei fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawker14
here's an interesting link to dispute your "very few billionaire owners in the league" argument. http://ordinaryleastsquare.typepad.c...ss_new_bo.html

also why does anyone "deserve" a return on investment when taking a financial risk ? one thing often overlooked is that franchise values have gone up along with player salaries. just because teams may not be making a profit doesn't mean they are not building equity in their investment.

when you invest in the stock market, do u plan to make your money from the stock going up, or dividends from profits ?
But that list is still in minority and also it includes people who have a stake in
ownership.Some of them are part of a consordium.

You have a valid point that there has been some equity growth in some cases
but that is very tangible with the current situation.Also sport franchises work
a little like a pyramid scheme in how they increase value through expansion
but the pyramid is vulnerable.

Your link also validates my point,though that the billionaires got their billions
from someplace other than the NHL.


Last edited by pei fan: 02-07-2005 at 10:38 AM.
pei fan is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 10:38 AM
  #12
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawker14
here's an interesting link to dispute your "very few billionaire owners in the league" argument. http://ordinaryleastsquare.typepad.c...ss_new_bo.html

also why does anyone "deserve" a return on investment when taking a financial risk ? one thing often overlooked is that franchise values have gone up along with player salaries. just because teams may not be making a profit doesn't mean they are not building equity in their investment.

when you invest in the stock market, do u plan to make your money from the stock going up, or dividends from profits ?
No one deserves a return on investment per se but I'm willing to bet there are 700 hockey players who don't want to see the league fold because there isn't that return on investment. Quite honestly there are 30 ownership groups who really wouldn't blink twice at shutting down shop because they are not receiving that return on investment....some may be passionate but in the end business is business and they'll shut it down.

tantalum is online now  
Old
02-07-2005, 10:41 AM
  #13
gobuds
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 97
vCash: 500
The original post contained herein, is erronous. The Billionaire vs millionaire argument is this:

In a fight between billionaire owners and millionaire players, irrespective of how each side attained its wealth, the owners will win simply because they have the ability to last longer absent hockey revenue. Consider that several teams will loose less money this year compared with last when playing, do you think those teams are hurting right now? (note: the question is not will they suffer from empty buildings once play resumes, rather are they suffering now? and the answer is that they aren't).

This argument, is not what the poster says, it is never about taking sides, it is about simple economics....the players are missing the $ omre then the owners, and the owners have a bigger war chest to outlast the players...it is that simple.

gobuds is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 10:57 AM
  #14
pei fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gobuds
The original post contained herein, is erronous. The Billionaire vs millionaire argument is this:

In a fight between billionaire owners and millionaire players, irrespective of how each side attained its wealth, the owners will win simply because they have the ability to last longer absent hockey revenue. Consider that several teams will loose less money this year compared with last when playing, do you think those teams are hurting right now? (note: the question is not will they suffer from empty buildings once play resumes, rather are they suffering now? and the answer is that they aren't).

This argument, is not what the poster says, it is never about taking sides, it is about simple economics....the players are missing the $ omre then the owners, and the owners have a bigger war chest to outlast the players...it is that simple.
No, that's not the context of what I see in the majority of posts.
It's usually : I don't have any sympathy for either one-it's just a bunch of
millionaires vs. billionaires and they're ruining the NHL.

BUT,now that you mention it I also have seen it in the context you stated.
Recenlty I read a bunch of posts with it in my stated context.Anyway
sorry if I've caused confusion.

pei fan 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 07:33 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.