The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
A ''temporary salary cap'' of 69 M this summer before new CBA? (May: est $70.3m cap)
.... What business do employees make a bigger percentage of the income than the owners do? ....
just about every business ... do business owners make more than give or take 10% after tax? .. the employee's as a group surely do
that said, pro athletes are not employee's, they are the product or at least the most significant ingredient of the product.
if i made rubber widgets, the cost of producing the widgets would surely be in the 50-60% range of the revenue. so why is it a surprise that pro athletes draw that much from the overall revenue themselves?
frankly, the owners had their lockout, they had the fan support and this is the deal they were willing to die on their mountain for. why would anyone support them going back to the well for me?
sympathy for billionaires who continue to shoot loopholes in their own scorched earth agreement?
the lockout was not for parity, it was not for small markets, it was because the owners knew the time to strike was right and so they did.
you are all fools for letting them do it again. if the owners dont want to pay Vinny Lecavalier 10m this season or Pekka Rinne 7m or Brian Campbell 7m, here is a hint.
D O N T O F F E R I T
seems pretty frikkin simple to me. and if they are offering it, its because they made a business decision that the ROI on that investment is better than the next best alternative.
good for them. these guys are not merely rich, they are tycoons. people who made billions exploiting opportunities. good for them, i applaud their success but dont sell me this garbage that a new CBA is required.
scrap the cap is whats best for everyone. notice how since the cap came in, perenial losers like CHI and BOS are winning and previous winners like CRL, TBY, and ANA are not?
How are players getting overpaid if their salary is linked to 55% of the revenues?
Maybe because 55% of revenues is overpaid? What if non-player expenses are 50% of revenues, then owners assume all the risk and have a -5% margin? Your question is pretty silly.
Bay street law firms will pay about $50/hr for 2000 hours work to associates, but will bill for over $300/hr. By that metric, highly skilled workers get less than 20% of revenues.
I'm sure you could find better examples from the income statements of other labour intensive industries. But by the % of revenue metric, players are heavily overcompensated (arguably because of how unique their labour is).
Richardson (with help from Mirtle and others) goes through the possible variations of cap and a lower player % thinking that the final 2012-new CBA cap could be as low as $61.5mm (with floor around $41mm).
Richardson (with help from Mirtle and others) goes through the possible variations of cap and a lower player % thinking that the final 2012-new CBA cap could be as low as $61.5mm (with floor around $41mm).
I have no idea why anyone believes that the NHL got the system they locked out the players over for a year, and then somehow the players will just let the league reduce the salary pool by 12% despite the league's record revenue growth? Really?
In which reality do you cry poor when you just grew revenues by leaps and bounds in every single year since the lockout? Oh, the revenue isn't spread out equally among all the teams? You don't say?
That is a matter for revenue sharing--- not lowering the players' share and certainly now lowering it without giving the players something they want. Never mind that the league wants contract limits too.
When BIGGER leagues, like the NFL and NBA just went though lockouts that LOWERED the pct. income than you can guarantee the NHL owners will lockout until the same thing happens, argue the side you want, I promise you this is and will be a fact. What business do employees make a bigger percentage of the income than the owners do? Not saying it isnt any, because I dont know....but there are not many.
Who gives a rat's ass? The NHL already had their lockout and this is the hard cap and range and revenue transfer system they wanted. They were ecstatic over getting linkage. Well, here you are. HRR grew enough so that linkage went from 54% to 57%? Is that the players' fault now too? Hey, revenues grew too much. We're making TOO MUCH MONEY so you have to give us more back.
Maybe because 55% of revenues is overpaid? What if non-player expenses are 50% of revenues, then owners assume all the risk and have a -5% margin? Your question is pretty silly.
Bay street law firms will pay about $50/hr for 2000 hours work to associates, but will bill for over $300/hr. By that metric, highly skilled workers get less than 20% of revenues.
I'm sure you could find better examples from the income statements of other labour intensive industries. But by the % of revenue metric, players are heavily overcompensated (arguably because of how unique their labour is).
pro athletes are not employees, your example therefore is faulty.
pro athletes are not employees, your example therefore is faulty.
Right.. they're "products"...
I suppose you think cirque de soleil entertainers are "products" too. Too bad a great hockey player or fantastic gymnast can't make any money without people to actually employ them as entertainers. I suppose Datsyuk could lay down a patch of ice during buskerfest and show off some sweet stick-handling moves. He better bring a big hat if he expects $6.7mil
If they did reduce the cap, would there also be a salary rollback for all players? I don't see how a temp cap of $68-69m that then gets lowered to $61m would work without a lot of teams having to scramble and dump players. (I don't recall what happened after the last lockout.)
(I don't recall what happened after the last lockout.)
There was an across the board reduction of 25% of all existing contracts, and teams had the ability (short window) to buy out contracts without any cap hit.
I suppose you think cirque de soleil entertainers are "products" too. Too bad a great hockey player or fantastic gymnast can't make any money without people to actually employ them as entertainers. I suppose Datsyuk could lay down a patch of ice during buskerfest and show off some sweet stick-handling moves. He better bring a big hat if he expects $6.7mil
i dont know why are arguing with me about it ... the owners of the pro teams obviously believe their investment of 50-57% of their gross is a reasonable expense for this component of their production costs.
they dont treat the athletes like employees, so why are you calling them such?
as for the cirque or other productions, well they clearly operate under a different model and thats that.
There was an across the board reduction of 25% of all existing contracts, and teams had the ability (short window) to buy out contracts without any cap hit.
(All negotiated)
Thanks, LS.
Was that 25% for the entire remainder of the term or only the 2005-06 season ?
the owners of the pro teams obviously believe their investment of 50-57% of their gross is a reasonable expense for this component of their production costs.
Yes obviously, hence the frequent lockouts.
Quote:
they dont treat the athletes like employees, so why are you calling them such?
if you say so ... but i have never heard of Jarome Iginla having to punch a time card when he arrives on shift. nor have I have headr about the last time the delivery driver at FDX in Nashville got traded to the UPS station in Kalamazoo.
if you honestly believe that pro athletes are treated exactly like employees then there is nothing left to discuss.
just about every business ... do business owners make more than give or take 10% after tax? .. the employee's as a group surely do
that said, pro athletes are not employee's, they are the product or at least the most significant ingredient of the product.
if i made rubber widgets, the cost of producing the widgets would surely be in the 50-60% range of the revenue. so why is it a surprise that pro athletes draw that much from the overall revenue themselves?
frankly, the owners had their lockout, they had the fan support and this is the deal they were willing to die on their mountain for. why would anyone support them going back to the well for me?
sympathy for billionaires who continue to shoot loopholes in their own scorched earth agreement?
the lockout was not for parity, it was not for small markets, it was because the owners knew the time to strike was right and so they did.
you are all fools for letting them do it again. if the owners dont want to pay Vinny Lecavalier 10m this season or Pekka Rinne 7m or Brian Campbell 7m, here is a hint.
D O N T O F F E R I T
seems pretty frikkin simple to me. and if they are offering it, its because they made a business decision that the ROI on that investment is better than the next best alternative.
good for them. these guys are not merely rich, they are tycoons. people who made billions exploiting opportunities. good for them, i applaud their success but dont sell me this garbage that a new CBA is required.
scrap the cap is whats best for everyone. notice how since the cap came in, perenial losers like CHI and BOS are winning and previous winners like CRL, TBY, and ANA are not?
yup, the cap sure saved those small markets!
Holy left wing talking points batman. Do you work for Huffington Post?
You know the owners OWN the teams right? That actually means something. The owners arent here just to provide YOU a service.
We have no right to the team or the players nor do we have any right to anything . You just get to watch the games and pay for merchandise .
OR
dont pay and dont watch. Simple choice.
We as fans :
1) will never win the stanley cup.
2) will never be part of the team(s) we follow
3) the teams will never know we exist by name , even if we follow the team for 50 years.
4) to the team, a guy who is a fan in Brazil is the same as a fan living right beside the ice rink. The only way the team would care is if one held season tickets as opposed to the other one.
As long as we realize this, then we can enjoy the games for what they are. Entertainment. We have no say in any of it nor do the owners or players owe us anything. We simply have the right to watch or not.
I wouldnt be too worried about things so far beyond your reach as this. Just watch the games and try to relax .
I don't see how the NHL could possibly argue to lower the cap under a new CBA... the NHL got it's cost certainty and the players only make 55% of league revenue.
The NBA and NFL players make around 50%, so I can see the NHL owners looking for that number as well.
The real issue for the players if they want to keep as many jobs as possible is forcing more revenue sharing on big market teams. Without more revenue sharing teams that are financially weaker will eventually fold and players will lose jobs.
The owners better wake up to the idea that they are partners in some ways and competitors in others. If they don't contraction is right around the corner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chasespace
Bettman has been preparing for this the moment the last CBA was signed. He's going to beat Fehr.
Holy left wing talking points batman. Do you work for Huffington Post?
You know the owners OWN the teams right? That actually means something. The owners arent here just to provide YOU a service.
We have no right to the team or the players nor do we have any right to anything . You just get to watch the games and pay for merchandise .
OR
dont pay and dont watch. Simple choice.
We as fans :
1) will never win the stanley cup.
2) will never be part of the team(s) we follow
3) the teams will never know we exist by name , even if we follow the team for 50 years.
4) to the team, a guy who is a fan in Brazil is the same as a fan living right beside the ice rink. The only way the team would care is if one held season tickets as opposed to the other one.
As long as we realize this, then we can enjoy the games for what they are. Entertainment. We have no say in any of it nor do the owners or players owe us anything. We simply have the right to watch or not.
I wouldnt be too worried about things so far beyond your reach as this. Just watch the games and try to relax .
So being in favour of free market economics makes one 'left wing' or whatever no? Well...
You refer to the games as 'entertainment', but yet you do not feel that the entertainers in the NHL should be treated the same as entertainers in other industries? Why not?
Just because the owners own the teams it does not mean that they have omnipotent power to do as they please. They still have to abide by those pesky laws and such
So being in favour of free market economics makes one 'left wing' or whatever no? Well...
You refer to the games as 'entertainment', but yet you do not feel that the entertainers in the NHL should be treated the same as entertainers in other industries? Why not?
Just because the owners own the teams it does not mean that they have omnipotent power to do as they please. They still have to abide by those pesky laws and such
What laws would those be, the ones that the NBA and NFL owners broke when they negotiated CBAs where the players get approximately 50% of the revenues?
I have seen this argument before. Professional athletes are not like singers or actors. Without a team to play on, they can't entertain us.
What laws would those be, the ones that the NBA and NFL owners broke when they negotiated CBAs where the players get approximately 50% of the revenues?
I have seen this argument before. Professional athletes are not like singers or actors. Without a team to play on, they can't entertain us.
I was making reference to the fact that owners cannot do whatever they want whenever they want just because the own a sports team. This is what some people come across as believing it seems. The don't live in a societal vacuum of some sorts.
Pro athletes are not like singers or actors that is correct. They play sports as opposed to singing or acting Without a stage and/or production company they cannot perform their crafts either. However, they still get a free market to sell their services.
If Bettman tells players to take a pay cut 'just because football/basketball players did' then Fehr will come back and play the revenue sharing card. I would propose 100% revenue sharing myself. It would put cracks in the owners position that could be exploited, hopefully leading to a luxury tax system and a better and fairer deal for players.
I was making reference to the fact that owners cannot do whatever they want whenever they want just because the own a sports team. This is what some people come across as believing it seems. The don't live in a societal vacuum of some sorts.
Pro athletes are not like singers or actors that is correct. They play sports as opposed to singing or acting Without a stage and/or production company they cannot perform their crafts either. However, they still get a free market to sell their services.
If Bettman tells players to take a pay cut 'just because football/basketball players did' then Fehr will come back and play the revenue sharing card. I would propose 100% revenue sharing myself. It would put cracks in the owners position that could be exploited, hopefully leading to a luxury tax system and a better and fairer deal for players.
As he should. This likely will create a power struggle within the owners. Some will realize the need for more revenue sharing, and the owners of big market teams might be willing to see the NHL lose some teams before agreeing to a large revenue sharing program.
Revenue sharing has to happen if the NHL is going to keep 30 teams. For the players to get that concession from the big market owners, they are going to have to give something up.
I don't see the owners agreeing to 100% revenue sharing or a luxury tax system. The hard cap battle was fought and won in the last CBA.
As he should. This likely will create a power struggle within the owners. Some will realize the need for more revenue sharing, and the owners of big market teams might be willing to see the NHL lose some teams before agreeing to a large revenue sharing program.
Revenue sharing has to happen if the NHL is going to keep 30 teams. For the players to get that concession from the big market owners, they are going to have to give something up.
I don't see the owners agreeing to 100% revenue sharing or a luxury tax system. The hard cap battle was fought and won in the last CBA.
Yes, but would you give up 30% of the value of your franchise (say you paid $300 MM) so the guy who put up $90 MM would double his-- at your expense?
Yes, but would you give up 30% of the value of your franchise (say you paid $300 MM) so the guy who put up $90 MM would double his-- at your expense?
I don't see where you get the 30% of the value of a franchise number. I sincerely doubt that the NHL owners will agree to go 100% total revenue sharing, therefore the value of teams will still depend quite a bit on the amount of revenue the team generates.
If revenue sharing doesn't happen on a larger scale, then I believe there will be a reduction in the number of teams. If that's what the owners want, so be it.
Without a stage and/or production company they cannot perform their crafts either. However, they still get a free market to sell their services.
