HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Notices

CBA Negotiations

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-03-2012, 03:06 PM
  #326
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 101,022
vCash: 340
Quote:
Originally Posted by BleedOrange View Post
The big money makers should not have to keep the small markets afloat sink or swim cant make it move them some where where they will.
Without all those small markets the NHL wouldn't have been able to get the TV deal they did

NBC and other networks want as wide of exposure as possible

Cutting # of NHL teams goes against that

Blackhawkswincup is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 03:11 PM
  #327
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,046
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
Without all those small markets the NHL wouldn't have been able to get the TV deal they did

NBC and other networks want as wide of exposure as possible

Cutting # of NHL teams goes against that
And the NHLPA doesn't want to lose members..

So you have the NHL who doesn't want to lose teams and the NHLPA that doesn't want to lose teams..

Not sure why everyone suggests contraction

Krishna is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 03:32 PM
  #328
flyershockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,563
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haute Couturier View Post
Snider had no problem pocketing their expansion fees so the owners could profit off a larger television contract. The owners created this mess so they have to deal with it.

Snider is a big hypocrite. He is on the side that is claiming the system is broken when no one abused it more than he did. He wants to take the hockey season from us to prevent what he has been doing all along. The only thing the owners proposal does is line his pockets with more money. Meanwhile the Flyers justify increases in ticket prices claiming the costs are rising when they were paying more on player salaries prior to the last lockout than they have been in the last 7 years.

Snider and the other big market owners are the biggest jokers in all of this.
The big markets kept the expansion fees with the idea that these teams would become profitable or relocate. It's how the NHL has operated from its creation. If a team is failing in one location it's moved to another without much afterthought. Bettman made Southern expansion his number one goal as soon as he became Commissioner and has refused to admit most of them have been failures. That's why most of the big market teams are against revenue sharing. Not only does it give the lesser teams a competitive advantage, but they also might as well throw their money down the toilet. It certainly isn't going to keep these franchises afloat.

I have no problem with the larger markets holding out for less revenue sharing. I do have a problem with an insistence on lowering the cap by so much, even after the league recorded record revenue earnings last year. Do you really think Snider wants that? Comcast Spectacor has certainly spent a lot more than just 68 million dollars in payroll in the past, and they have no problem doing so.

flyershockey is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 03:34 PM
  #329
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,735
vCash: 156
I would assume the small market teams want the cap lowered. Lower cap hurts the Flyers.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is online now  
Old
09-03-2012, 03:41 PM
  #330
Haute Couturier
Registered User
 
Haute Couturier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 5,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GKJ View Post
He had no problem pocketing the expansion fees, but I'm sure he'd love to have them still making money after that.
Of course, but he and his fellow owners chose to put NHL teams in non-traditional markets. They knew it would take time to grow these markets, but decided it was a good idea because it would line their pockets.They can't complain when they knew it was going to take time.

Haute Couturier is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 03:43 PM
  #331
SeanCWombBroom
DownieFaceSoftener
 
SeanCWombBroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haute Couturier View Post
Snider is a big hypocrite. He is on the side that is claiming the system is broken when no one abused it more than he did. He wants to take the hockey season from us to prevent what he has been doing all along. The only thing the owners proposal does is line his pockets with more money. Meanwhile the Flyers justify increases in ticket prices claiming the costs are rising when they were paying more on player salaries prior to the last lockout than they have been in the last 7 years.
Snider hasn't done anything wrong. You can claim the system is broken and then take advantage of it, because, frankly, that's the cards dealt. People work within the system provided to their advantage or somebody else will. He's one guy with a lot of pull, but he can't force the rest of the owners to capitulate.

He's a businessman. It's his job to make money. Nothing wrong with it.

You do realize that, after all costs, the Flyers only made 3.2 million, right? They actually lost -4% in value. Snider is running the team almost breaking even, using the growing value of NHL teams as a buffer against inflation. Having a team is like owning real estate. It tends to grow at the same rate as taxes + inflation, so your invested money retains its worth, instead of depreciating like most money.

He would also like to make money, in addition to simply being afforded the luxury of running a team. I would be enraged if I could only break even while small market teams began to black hole the profits and then wanted more revenue sharing. You don't work, then fold.

Revenue sharing would make the Flyers go into the negative per year. The big teams to actually take money from aren't the Flyers. They are the Leafs, Rangers, and Canadians, whose combined earnings top the entire rest of the league.

Snider spends money-- he doesn't make much of anything on the Flyers.

The average hockey team is worth 5% more than last year. To beat inflation and taxes, you have to hit 7%.

Quote:
Snider and the other big market owners are the biggest jokers in all of this.
Yeah, it's crazy to be part of a group that purchases a team for over a hundred million dollars and NOT want other groups to drag down the money and value of that investment.

SeanCWombBroom is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 03:53 PM
  #332
Haute Couturier
Registered User
 
Haute Couturier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 5,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyershockey View Post
The big markets kept the expansion fees with the idea that these teams would become profitable or relocate. It's how the NHL has operated from its creation. If a team is failing in one location it's moved to another without much afterthought. Bettman made Southern expansion his number one goal as soon as he became Commissioner and has refused to admit most of them have been failures. That's why most of the big market teams are against revenue sharing. Not only does it give the lesser teams a competitive advantage, but they also might as well throw their money down the toilet. It certainly isn't going to keep these franchises afloat.

I have no problem with the larger markets holding out for less revenue sharing. I do have a problem with an insistence on lowering the cap by so much, even after the league recorded record revenue earnings last year. Do you really think Snider wants that? Comcast Spectacor has certainly spent a lot more than just 68 million dollars in payroll in the past, and they have no problem doing so.
Bettman's Southern expansion was the #1 goal because that was the owners #1 goal. If the majority of the board wanted these franchise moved they'd be gone. Bettman works for them and not the other way around.

I think Snider is perfectly fine with a lower cap. It would just be like when the cap was instituted. The bigger markets will still have the advantage because the smaller markets will spend closer to the floor while the large markets spend to the cap. All it means for the bigger markets is costs are controlled so they are spending less on player salaries.

Haute Couturier is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 04:39 PM
  #333
SeanCWombBroom
DownieFaceSoftener
 
SeanCWombBroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,684
vCash: 500
Article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozan...ess-of-hockey/

SeanCWombBroom is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 07:08 PM
  #334
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,450
vCash: 5700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haute Couturier View Post
Of course, but he and his fellow owners chose to put NHL teams in non-traditional markets. They knew it would take time to grow these markets, but decided it was a good idea because it would line their pockets.They can't complain when they knew it was going to take time.
No argument, but shouldn't they be able to complain if they want to get out and Bettman refuses to do it?

GKJ is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 08:16 PM
  #335
flyershockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,563
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haute Couturier View Post
Bettman's Southern expansion was the #1 goal because that was the owners #1 goal. If the majority of the board wanted these franchise moved they'd be gone. Bettman works for them and not the other way around.

I think Snider is perfectly fine with a lower cap. It would just be like when the cap was instituted. The bigger markets will still have the advantage because the smaller markets will spend closer to the floor while the large markets spend to the cap. All it means for the bigger markets is costs are controlled so they are spending less on player salaries.
How do we know all of the owners were in on the idea of Southern expansion? Snider may not have been but was outvoted by other owners who were for expansion.

If you were in Snider's shoes, would you be for revenue sharing? It would require the Flyers to give money to floundering franchises in the hopes that they become competitive and profitable. Why would he be in favor of that? Shouldn't they be held accountable for their own terrible business decisions? I tend to side with the players in this whole ordeal, but I have no problem with Snider's stance.

Lower caps will do nothing more than force average to good players out of the league. Teams will have less depth and more rookies constantly on their roster because prime age players will take up most of the cap.

flyershockey is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 10:02 PM
  #336
MsWoof
Registered User
 
MsWoof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,842
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
I would assume the small market teams want the cap lowered. Lower cap hurts the Flyers.
It wouldn't hurt the Flyers if they spent wisely. Just because you have the money doesn't mean you should spend to the limit, especially in cases when you're bidding against yourself. I'm not just talking about this summer's insanity because a lot of teams were out of control but in past years we've been in cap hell because of stupid decisions like Randy Jones' and Jody Shelley's signing.

MsWoof is offline  
Old
09-03-2012, 10:27 PM
  #337
BernieParent
Registered User
 
BernieParent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownieFaceSoftener View Post
Snider hasn't done anything wrong. You can claim the system is broken and then take advantage of it, because, frankly, that's the cards dealt. People work within the system provided to their advantage or somebody else will. He's one guy with a lot of pull, but he can't force the rest of the owners to capitulate.

He's a businessman. It's his job to make money. Nothing wrong with it.

You do realize that, after all costs, the Flyers only made 3.2 million, right? They actually lost -4% in value. Snider is running the team almost breaking even, using the growing value of NHL teams as a buffer against inflation. Having a team is like owning real estate. It tends to grow at the same rate as taxes + inflation, so your invested money retains its worth, instead of depreciating like most money.

He would also like to make money, in addition to simply being afforded the luxury of running a team. I would be enraged if I could only break even while small market teams began to black hole the profits and then wanted more revenue sharing. You don't work, then fold.

Revenue sharing would make the Flyers go into the negative per year. The big teams to actually take money from aren't the Flyers. They are the Leafs, Rangers, and Canadians, whose combined earnings top the entire rest of the league.

Snider spends money-- he doesn't make much of anything on the Flyers.

The average hockey team is worth 5% more than last year. To beat inflation and taxes, you have to hit 7%.



Yeah, it's crazy to be part of a group that purchases a team for over a hundred million dollars and NOT want other groups to drag down the money and value of that investment.
I'm skeptical that Snider's balance sheet on the Flyers isn't weighted out against his list of other investments.

BernieParent is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 12:01 AM
  #338
SeanCWombBroom
DownieFaceSoftener
 
SeanCWombBroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BernieParent View Post
I'm skeptical that Snider's balance sheet on the Flyers isn't weighted out against his list of other investments.
Are the owners supposed to take a loss? Generally, that's how you lose your job at an investment meeting. Snider has job security, but it isn't necessarily that way around the rest of the league. You can't lose money on 150+ million dollar investments. You just can't. The Devils are almost bankrupt.

SeanCWombBroom is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 02:03 AM
  #339
El Dandy*
...Menace To Society
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dry Island
Posts: 9,767
vCash: 163
What is this I hear about a lock out?

El Dandy* is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 02:58 AM
  #340
TyrannoMeszarosRex
Humanoid
 
TyrannoMeszarosRex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Kuwait
Country: Scotland
Posts: 289
vCash: 500

TyrannoMeszarosRex is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 10:46 AM
  #341
Snotbubbles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,482
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
And the NHLPA doesn't want to lose members..

So you have the NHL who doesn't want to lose teams and the NHLPA that doesn't want to lose teams..

Not sure why everyone suggests contraction
I see little sense in having the New York Ranger, New York Islander, New Jersey Devils and Philadelphia Flyers all competing for the Northeast Pennsylvania-North New Jersey fans. Simply having a team in New York and a team in Philadelphia would do the job. I don't think NBC or any network would cancel a TV contract if the New Jersey Devils and New York Islanders were contracted. If the NHLPA doesn't want to lose jobs, have the NHL expand the rosters and allow teams to have a 7th defenseman on the bench.

Snotbubbles is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 11:31 AM
  #342
BernieParent
Registered User
 
BernieParent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownieFaceSoftener View Post
Are the owners supposed to take a loss? Generally, that's how you lose your job at an investment meeting. Snider has job security, but it isn't necessarily that way around the rest of the league. You can't lose money on 150+ million dollar investments. You just can't. The Devils are almost bankrupt.
What I meant was that I'd be surprised if Snider's army of accountants didn't subtract from the column of Flyers income or increase expenses and add/subtract it elsewhere to prop up another part of his empire.

BernieParent is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 12:31 PM
  #343
RespectTheCouts
He Eats Souls
 
RespectTheCouts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,850
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snotbubbles View Post
I see little sense in having the New York Ranger, New York Islander, New Jersey Devils and Philadelphia Flyers all competing for the Northeast Pennsylvania-North New Jersey fans. Simply having a team in New York and a team in Philadelphia would do the job. I don't think NBC or any network would cancel a TV contract if the New Jersey Devils and New York Islanders were contracted. If the NHLPA doesn't want to lose jobs, have the NHL expand the rosters and allow teams to have a 7th defenseman on the bench.
One could argue that the Devils are a succesful franchise making it to the finals last year and winning a couple cups not too long ago, and moving them would be unfair to the fans, BUT on the other hand I'm pretty sure the franchise doesn't make any money and has a hard time selling out games, plus they're in Newark, not the #1 optimal spot for a hockey team

RespectTheCouts is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 02:20 PM
  #344
Snotbubbles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,482
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RespectTheMajor View Post
One could argue that the Devils are a succesful franchise making it to the finals last year and winning a couple cups not too long ago, and moving them would be unfair to the fans, BUT on the other hand I'm pretty sure the franchise doesn't make any money and has a hard time selling out games, plus they're in Newark, not the #1 optimal spot for a hockey team
On-ice, very successful. But the off-ice stuff is what really matters for this discussion.

Snotbubbles is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 03:01 PM
  #345
PHILOUDELPHIA
Registered User
 
PHILOUDELPHIA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: PHILADELPHIA
Posts: 600
vCash: 500
NHL board of governers meet today, no offcial meetings are announced, but NHL PA also has people in NYC, ready for the phone call for when the NHL does want to chat.

PHILOUDELPHIA is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 03:06 PM
  #346
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,046
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHILOUDELPHIA View Post
NHL board of governers meet today, no offcial meetings are announced, but NHL PA also has people in NYC, ready for the phone call for when the NHL does want to chat.
NHLPA should be the ones to call.. everyone knows the owners are gonna win

Krishna is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 03:13 PM
  #347
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,046
vCash: 50
http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...of-free-agency

Quote:
While we await the NHL and NHL Players’ Association to resume talks -- no scheduled sessions at this point -- here’s a little nugget I found interesting from the summer’s negotiating sessions: The league has proposed to the NHLPA to have free agency start July 10 instead of the long-standing July 1 opening day, two sources told ESPN.com.

Krishna is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 03:14 PM
  #348
PHILOUDELPHIA
Registered User
 
PHILOUDELPHIA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: PHILADELPHIA
Posts: 600
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
NHLPA should be the ones to call.. everyone knows the owners are gonna win
oh i agree, in fact wouldn't suprise me if they are like next door or accross the street, from NHL building.

Tim pannacio has kept his NYC hotel booked, he is using the SNY stuidios near radio city music all, to report to CSN, as well as using his phone when at nhl building.

I prefer aaron ward though.

PHILOUDELPHIA is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 03:19 PM
  #349
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,046
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHILOUDELPHIA View Post
oh i agree, in fact wouldn't suprise me if they are like next door or accross the street, from NHL building.

Tim pannacio has kept his NYC hotel booked, he is using the SNY stuidios near radio city music all, to report to CSN, as well as using his phone when at nhl building.

I prefer aaron ward though.
Ward and Botta are the best to follow.. Both seem to be reporting bias free..

Like I've said many times, panotch has been waiting for a lockout for the past year now

Krishna is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 03:19 PM
  #350
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,046
vCash: 50
@RenLavoieRDS: League source indicated to me that the NHL as a whole is losing a significant amount of money.

Renaud P Lavoie ‏@RenLavoieRDS
Another one said close to 240 million lost total, in the last 2 seasons.

Krishna 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 06:10 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.