HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Buffalo Sabres
Notices

Anti-lockout protests in Buffalo and around the league

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-13-2012, 02:26 PM
  #51
stokes84
Registered User
 
stokes84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 6,487
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to stokes84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechsack View Post
The NHLPA doesn't have a say in franchise contraction.
There isn't a union that exists that would let its members get laid off without a fight.

stokes84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 02:34 PM
  #52
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 4,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
The league's not making net profit. Under the current financial structure, that only can add up to contraction in the long run - or laying off players, effectively. So the players have to give. Consider it like the owners have been giving more than the players performance was worth for 6 years, so now the players are damn well expected to give back.
The players have:

- Offered to reduce their percentage of overall revenues over the term of the agreement. They're willing to take the salary hit ; just not all in one shot.
- Proposed a more robust revenue sharing system to support the bottom end teams.

The owners have :

- Demanded a massive reduction in player salary.

Who's working towards solving the overall problems here? Clearly not the owners. A flat reduction in salaries doesn't solve the problem of those lower end teams still losing money, and without a solution there we're right back in the same place 6 years from now.

SackTastic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 02:40 PM
  #53
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 4,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
There isn't a union that exists that would let its members get laid off without a fight.
They. Don't. Have. A. Say.

The CBA doesn't guarantee that any number of jobs will be available, nor where those jobs will be. If the NHL contracted two teams, yes, those jobs may be lost, but if the goal is to stabilize jobs for 90% of their membership, they'll live with it.

SackTastic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 03:08 PM
  #54
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 33,191
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechsack View Post
The facepalm is strong here.
funniest thing i read all day

Jame is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 03:26 PM
  #55
stokes84
Registered User
 
stokes84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 6,487
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to stokes84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechsack View Post
They. Don't. Have. A. Say.

The CBA doesn't guarantee that any number of jobs will be available, nor where those jobs will be. If the NHL contracted two teams, yes, those jobs may be lost, but if the goal is to stabilize jobs for 90% of their membership, they'll live with it.
Two things. The current cba doesn't matter and even if it did, they would still have a say. It's one of the reasons they exist.

stokes84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 03:41 PM
  #56
BowieSabresFan
Registered User
 
BowieSabresFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,643
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
owning a sports franchise94875]I probably don't quite follow what you're saying here, but it makes it sound as if you believe people buy NHL franchises as a form of philanthropy. That they like the NHL so much they are willing to lose money to keep the sport afloat. Am I right?
I'm saying, nobody buys an NHL team as strictly a financial investment. There are many reasons to do it, including reputation enhancement, that are involved.[/QUOTE]

Nobody does much of anything for only one reason. It's a matter of whether or not the financial reasons were the primary (or at least an important) reason for wanting to own an NHL franchise. I think we could find more than one person who considers financial reasons an important part of why they own a franchise.

BowieSabresFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 04:10 PM
  #57
missingmika
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
owning a sports franchise94875]I probably don't quite follow what you're saying here, but it makes it sound as if you believe people buy NHL franchises as a form of philanthropy. That they like the NHL so much they are willing to lose money to keep the sport afloat. Am I right?
I'm saying, nobody buys an NHL team as strictly a financial investment. There are many reasons to do it, including reputation enhancement, that are involved.[/QUOTE]

Everyone that buys a sports team for a financial investment. Name one sports franchise over the past 20 years whose value did not appreciate? You'll be long pressed to find one.

Second, talk about an awesome tax write-off. Buy a sports-team, structure is as an S Corporation. Take the flow-through loss each year to reduce your taxes all while being able to enjoy going to all the games, hanging out with players, saying you own a sports team, etc.

missingmika is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 04:11 PM
  #58
zbubble
Registered User
 
zbubble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,101
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
Take that 43% and run 100% of the rest of your business, and you are left in a $240 million hole.
Actually, it's not, because the owners don't collectively share profits or losses. Each franchise keeps its own books. So it's take that 1.4% and see who's making money and who's not.

It would be like one McDonald's franchise somewhere struggling so all the McDonalds in the world decide to cut employee wages just to help that one McDonalds out, but the only real end result is that now all those other McDonalds now keep a bigger profit.

Let's not forget it's the owners that first wanted a salary cap and pushed to tie the cap to revenues. They created the first lockout. Now because of a few struggling franchises that cannot turn a profit even under the terms they first mandated, they are going to create the second.

Which leads back to the proposal that makes the most sense. The players have not only agreed to take a minor pay cut, but also formulated a plan to stabilize those franchises in the red. But for some reason, the owners that are making the most profits have no interest in helping out the ones that aren't. Hmm... and it's only the players that are greedy, right...


Last edited by zbubble: 09-13-2012 at 04:28 PM.
zbubble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 08:21 PM
  #59
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,503
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zbubble View Post
Actually, it's not, because the owners don't collectively share profits or losses. Each franchise keeps its own books. So it's take that 1.4% and see who's making money and who's not.

It would be like one McDonald's franchise somewhere struggling so all the McDonalds in the world decide to cut employee wages just to help that one McDonalds out, but the only real end result is that now all those other McDonalds now keep a bigger profit.

Let's not forget it's the owners that first wanted a salary cap and pushed to tie the cap to revenues. They created the first lockout. Now because of a few struggling franchises that cannot turn a profit even under the terms they first mandated, they are going to create the second.

Which leads back to the proposal that makes the most sense. The players have not only agreed to take a minor pay cut, but also formulated a plan to stabilize those franchises in the red. But for some reason, the owners that are making the most profits have no interest in helping out the ones that aren't. Hmm... and it's only the players that are greedy, right...
But if the league as a collective is running a deficit, the only way to fix it necessarily includes cutting player costs - you can't revenue share your way out of a leaguewide net loss. You can just spread the loss out.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 08:35 PM
  #60
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 4,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
Two things. The current cba doesn't matter and even if it did, they would still have a say. It's one of the reasons they exist.
You're quite wrong on thus, but I have better things to do with my time than continue to discuss it.

SackTastic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 09:17 AM
  #61
zbubble
Registered User
 
zbubble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,101
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
But if the league as a collective is running a deficit, the only way to fix it necessarily includes cutting player costs - you can't revenue share your way out of a leaguewide net loss. You can just spread the loss out.
Theoretically if 29 teams turn a profit but that one team that doesn't is suffering from such a huge loss that that collectively, on paper, it shows the league is losing money, and all you can come up with is cutting player costs, then you're not addressing the real problem.

Before the salary cap was put into place, player salaries equaled 74 percent of revenue value. To level the playing field, the NHL came up with a model that caps salary based on revenue numbers, limiting the players to what we all know to be 20% less than what they previously accounted for.

Record revenues have now increased 1.2 billion dollars per year over the last lockout. At 43%, that's half a billion dollars extra going to the owners, per year. Yet some franchises are still losing money. That indicates a serious problem independent from salary that they are refusing to address.

Unless the NHL addresses management and market issues that plague certain franchises even in the period of record growth, they need to accept the fact that some franchises are going to lose money no matter what the players earn.


Last edited by zbubble: 09-14-2012 at 09:59 AM.
zbubble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 10:05 AM
  #62
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,503
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zbubble View Post
Theoretically if 29 teams turn a profit but that one team that doesn't is suffering from such a huge loss that that collectively, on paper, it shows the league is losing money, and all you can come up with is cutting player costs, then you're not addressing the real problem.

Before the salary cap was put into place, player salaries equaled 74 percent of revenue value. To level the playing field, the NHL came up with a model that caps salary based on revenue numbers, limiting the players to what we all know to be 20% less than what they previously accounted for.

Record revenues have now increased to 1.2 billion dollars over the last lockout. At 43%, that's half a billion dollars extra going to the owners, per year. Yet some franchises are still losing money. That indicates a serious problem independent from salary that they are refusing to address.

Unless the NHL addresses management and market issues that plague certain franchises even in the period of record growth, they need to accept the fact that some franchises are going to lose money no matter what the players earn.
Okay, fine. So tell me how you correct management/market issues through the CBA negotiations, or even what those poor management issues are (I'm presuming you mean spending too much on players, which is exactly what you fix through a lower cap).

This is how I see it:

1. NHL players make a higher percentage of revenues than in other sports.
2. The NHL makes a net loss, leaguewide - so more revenue sharing is fine, but mathematically it couldn't fix the problem. It's definitely not a 29:1 ratio in terms of profit/loss, either. My guess would be closer to 2:1.
3. Less of the NHL's revenue comes from TV than other sports, which means more of it depends on the live game, the merchandise, and other streams that have higher production costs to owners. So a higher proportion of that 43% of non-player money gets eaten up in producing the goods consumed, it doesn't just get handed to them by a network.
4. Management/market issues sounds like "let's relocate or give new ownership to Phoenix, Florida and the Islanders and that's how you fix it." I don't buy it. I don't see where the guaranteed great hockey market is lurking out there, unexploited, and I definitely don't believe you can ever get rid of what someone subjectively finds "bad management." There's always going to be some poorly run teams somewhere in the league that pay too much for too little talent. The best you can do is cap their expenditures with, you guessed it, a salary cap.

What's so wrong about a league that's losing money asking it's players to merely come into line with the salary structures of comparable healthy sports leagues? Why should that be the last thing to change, after relocation, revenue sharing (which really just rewards bad management, when you think about it, not discourages it), etc?

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 04:29 PM
  #63
zbubble
Registered User
 
zbubble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,101
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Okay, fine. So tell me how you correct management/market issues through the CBA negotiations, or even what those poor management issues are (I'm presuming you mean spending too much on players, which is exactly what you fix through a lower cap).
Take any franchise that lost money and look at everything going in and out. Player salaries are just a piece of the pie. You need to look at how they're structured. Then, there's presidents, gms, coaching staff, front office, leasing deals (favorable and unfavorable), advertising deals, ticket prices, ticket sales, travel costs, merchandise sales, things like that. Identify which ones seem out of whack and figure out why. Are teams spending too much in different areas, and are they getting all they can in income or are they short-changing themselves and passing the losses onto the players?

So now back to player salary. Here's an easy example on salary structure. Buffalo Sabres, like other teams, have adopted the practice of front loading large contracts. Myers and Ehroff's are a perfect example. They are receiving 20 million dollars combined in salary this year, but their combined cap hit is only 9.5 million. So the Sabres are currently paying out more money in actual dollars than cap dollars.

Actual dollars spent in a year is the number the NHL is using to determine its losses. As a side note, that 240 million in losses is a figure over 2 years, not just last year as some people assume.

So there are 5 contracts on the Sabres alone where the actual dollars spent diminish as time goes on. If it's safe to the same occurs on every team, you're looking at potentially 20% of all players having contracts that pay out more now than later.

What this means is that teams are currently spending over the cap in actual dollars.

Which begs the question, if the NHL is losing money now, is it because the "cap" is too high, or is it because the teams themselves have created a situation where more money is being paid out to players sooner than later?

Fine if you can afford it and don't care like Terry P., but if you can't and are losing money for the sake of signing guys you really can't afford, then that would be a poor management issue.


Quote:
This is how I see it:

1. NHL players make a higher percentage of revenues than in other sports.
Literally comparing apples to oranges.

Quote:
2. The NHL makes a net loss, leaguewide - so more revenue sharing is fine, but mathematically it couldn't fix the problem. It's definitely not a 29:1 ratio in terms of profit/loss, either. My guess would be closer to 2:1.
You'd be about right on the number of teams that report a loss, but see my above example on how the math isn't even being done correctly.

Quote:
3. Less of the NHL's revenue comes from TV than other sports, which means more of it depends on the live game, the merchandise, and other streams that have higher production costs to owners. So a higher proportion of that 43% of non-player money gets eaten up in producing the goods consumed, it doesn't just get handed to them by a network.
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here.

Quote:
4. Management/market issues sounds like "let's relocate or give new ownership to Phoenix, Florida and the Islanders and that's how you fix it."
It simply means don't shoot yourself in the foot and blame the players for it. If you can't manage your own money then it's your fault.

Quote:
I don't buy it. I don't see where the guaranteed great hockey market is lurking out there, unexploited, and I definitely
Is Winnipeg a better market than Atlanta? I'd say so. There are cities out these begging for a team - Quebec, Seattle, Kansas City. They laugh off Basille for wanting to buy Phoenix and move it, instead drawing maybe 5,000 fans on a good night.

Quote:
don't believe you can ever get rid of what someone subjectively finds "bad management." There's always going to be some poorly run teams somewhere in the league that pay too much for too little talent.
Unfortunately people will never stop inventing new ways to be stupid.

Quote:
The best you can do is cap their expenditures with, you guessed it, a salary cap.
Agree to disagree there.

Quote:
What's so wrong about a league that's losing money asking it's players to merely come into line with the salary structures of comparable healthy sports leagues? Why should that be the last thing to change, after relocation, revenue sharing (which really just rewards bad management, when you think about it, not discourages it), etc?
This point has been made several times, the players agreed to a reduction in salary under the condition that the owners also do a better job at sharing profits so _every one_ makes money and they don't go through the same issues every 6 years. What's wrong with that?

zbubble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 06:13 PM
  #64
cybresabre
Sir Hellcat
 
cybreSabre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: wNY
Posts: 7,134
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to cybresabre
Quote:
Originally Posted by zbubble View Post
Literally comparing apples to oranges.
Really? If the owners are literally paying these guys in fruit, the league has more issues than we originally thought.

cybresabre is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 01:58 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.