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.

How to make the NHL profitable again and prevent future lockouts: IPOs

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-01-2012, 07:30 PM
  #51
Hockey Team
Hunger Force
 
Hockey Team's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHockeyGameBrokeOut View Post
The revenue growth wasn't from ticket sales or any attempt to modify the supply and demand curve. That was my definition of 'fixed'. The growth also happens on a fixed level, it's a fixed gain, and it doesn't deviate from the line. The growth from 2.1 to 3.4 was all according to the curve and did not deviate from it for even a single second.



If they don't agree to it, you throw them out of the NHL. I already said that. Anyone who owns stock knows that stock shares are NOT cash. Go to your local department store and try to buy something and tell them you have shares and they'll laugh at your ridiculous idea, as they should. Cash is cash and options are options.

When a CEO is signed to a company in the US, it's normal for his salary to be fixed at $20-30 million, but he/she will get hundreds of millions in stock options.

It makes plenty of sense to those of us with degrees. If you don't understand, please have a friend (with a degree) help you out. Or consider attending a business school.

The entire point is that a team like Columbus, who doesn't have the cash to sign superstar players, could potentially sign a ton of them using stock options. If teams like you mentioned (Rangers) chose not to sell shares in their team - Columbus could send front-loaded stock option offer sheets to all of their players - and essentially leverage out half their guys.

Who wouldn't want to see an underdog team walk away with some/most/all the superstars of a bigger team? The market would be opened. You can only offer players so much money - stake in a team is a separate deal.
Ok.. Are the shares liquid (and if it's a public company then it will be liquid, to some extent)? If so then they're basically cash because they can be sold for cash.

I did go to business school, and I've worked on wall street. Stocks, if they're liquid, are essentially cash because you can sell your stake for cash at any time. If you own a substantial amount (like a 5%+ stake in a company), then it's less liquid because it's hard to sell that much without driving down the price. For players, an individual player would own a small % of the team, which would be easy to sell.

Options, also have a value. Are you familiar with Black Scholes? There's newer and better models for determining option values now, but bottom line is, there's a way to determine the value of an option, and options can also be sold or hedged. (Of course, there's usually restrictions on exercising and selling those options, but regardless, there's a way to determine the value). Not to mention, large amount of options are typically given to employees who have a substantial amount of control over how the company will perform (eg. CEO, CFO). Individual players have almost no control over where the franchise goes. Whether one guy scores +/- 10 goals in a season has little impact on franchise value.

I doubt you went to business school, because what you're proposing is not only unrealistic, it doesn't sound like it's a good deal for the owners, and you don't seem to have a grasp on how stock/option based compensation typically works. Companies have IPOs to benefit the owners. The owners are pretty happy with the ownership model they have now.

Hockey Team is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2012, 07:37 PM
  #52
AHockeyGameBrokeOut*
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
Country: United States
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Team View Post
Ok.. Are the shares liquid (and if it's a public company then it will be liquid, to some extent)? If so then they're basically cash because they can be sold for cash.

I did go to business school, and I've worked on wall street. Stocks, if they're liquid, are essentially cash because you can sell your stake for cash at any time. If you own a substantial amount (like a 5%+ stake in a company), then it's less liquid because it's hard to sell that much without driving down the price. For players, an individual player would own a small % of the team, which would be easy to sell.

Options, also have a value. Are you familiar with Black Scholes? There's newer and better models for determining option values now, but bottom line is, there's a way to determine the value of an option, and options can also be sold or hedged. (Of course, there's usually restrictions on exercising and selling those options, but regardless, there's a way to determine the value). Not to mention, large amount of options are typically given to employees who have a substantial amount of control over how the company will perform (eg. CEO, CFO). Individual players have almost no control over where the franchise goes. Whether one guy scores +/- 10 goals in a season has little impact on franchise value.

I doubt you went to business school, because what you're proposing is not only unrealistic, it doesn't sound like it's a good deal for the owners, and you don't seem to have a grasp on how stock/option based compensation typically works. Companies have IPOs to benefit the owners. The owners are pretty happy with the ownership model they have now.
They would not be liquid shares. Shares sold to the public would be liquid, however, shares given to players as options would be done so via pink sheets. This prevents players from dumping their shares for quick cash.

Individual players SHOULD have more control over the teams they play for. The owners, the league, the players, and the fans all want this. The pending sale of the Islanders to LaFontaine is another example of this principle.

By the year 2040, most or all of the franchises in the NHL will be owned and operated by ex-NHL players.

AHockeyGameBrokeOut* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2012, 08:01 PM
  #53
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 10,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHockeyGameBrokeOut View Post
Individual players SHOULD have more control over the teams they play for. The owners, the league, the players, and the fans all want this.
I think it's safe to say the owners and the league wouldn't want that. The majority of fans probably wouldn't either.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2012, 08:12 PM
  #54
AHockeyGameBrokeOut*
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
Country: United States
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
I think it's safe to say the owners and the league wouldn't want that. The majority of fans probably wouldn't either.
The evidence says otherwise, with more and more players becoming part owners, and ticket sales and viewership at record highs...

AHockeyGameBrokeOut* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2012, 09:19 PM
  #55
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 10,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHockeyGameBrokeOut View Post
The evidence says otherwise, with more and more players becoming part owners, and ticket sales and viewership at record highs...
I was responding to your claim that "individual players SHOULD have more control over the teams they play for" and that four different groups with widely different motivations (owners, league, players, fans) want this to happen.

On a side note last I checked Lafontaine doesn't play for the Islanders.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-01-2012, 09:32 PM
  #56
Hockey Team
Hunger Force
 
Hockey Team's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHockeyGameBrokeOut View Post
They would not be liquid shares. Shares sold to the public would be liquid, however, shares given to players as options would be done so via pink sheets. This prevents players from dumping their shares for quick cash.

Individual players SHOULD have more control over the teams they play for. The owners, the league, the players, and the fans all want this. The pending sale of the Islanders to LaFontaine is another example of this principle.

By the year 2040, most or all of the franchises in the NHL will be owned and operated by ex-NHL players.
Again.. proof that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Options that are issued as compensation aren't traded on the pink sheets, they're typically not traded on any listed exchange. They're generally long term warrants with restrictions on exercise and sale. And you said something about issuing shares earlier. Shares aren't "given as options". You're either giving shares or you're giving options/warrants.

Now.. take a deep breath, and reread everything you said in this thread and consider the following:
- Is any of this remotely realistic?
- How does any of this favor the current owner's interests? The CURRENT OWNERS are the ones who decide if this would happen. Even if this was realistic (it's not) and it would benefit the league as a whole (which is very questionable), it would hurt the current owners. They're not going to say "hey, let's all give up our teams because it'll be better for the league in the long run, even if we don't get the benefits of it!"

Hockey Team is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2012, 07:56 AM
  #57
AHockeyGameBrokeOut*
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
Country: United States
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Team View Post
Again.. proof that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Options that are issued as compensation aren't traded on the pink sheets, they're typically not traded on any listed exchange. They're generally long term warrants with restrictions on exercise and sale. And you said something about issuing shares earlier. Shares aren't "given as options". You're either giving shares or you're giving options/warrants.

Now.. take a deep breath, and reread everything you said in this thread and consider the following:
- Is any of this remotely realistic?
- How does any of this favor the current owner's interests? The CURRENT OWNERS are the ones who decide if this would happen. Even if this was realistic (it's not) and it would benefit the league as a whole (which is very questionable), it would hurt the current owners. They're not going to say "hey, let's all give up our teams because it'll be better for the league in the long run, even if we don't get the benefits of it!"
How does it help the current owners? It gives them a season and ends the lockout - it's 100% realistic, the idea that it isn't is something that those of you who side with the players have concocted in order to avoid a realistic analysis of a superb idea. The owners no longer have to worry about players begging them for money and instead can keep the revenues to get themselves out of the black ink while issuing the promise of future stocks to current players.

It's a very simple and realistic idea to compensate for the 7%-14% disparity in revenue between the two sides by offering the players stock options, thus ending the need to give them actual revenue this year, or any year. The money goes to the team to pay their debts to the cities they play in and to pay their expenses.

As we speak, team owners are losing money, and players are making money.

Teams first, players second. That has to be the mindset in order for CBA talks to progress. The primary issue in this case is not the viability of my idea itself (which could be re-worked over 100 different ways) but the realistic usage of an idea like this one as a platform to leverage compliance.

I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that you would say anything to side with the NHLPA, and I would strongly suggest that you work for the NHLPA or some related faculty and that is why you are making these assessments. You have a motive.

Agreements are like this ARE realistic - they are regularly created in every corporation in the US at the executive level - the highest paid professional athlete is still only an expendable employee, and should know his place.

The NHLPA wants power and control. I say, why not give it to them? And by give it to them, I mean force it on them.

If the owners were to offer the players 7-14% of their given teams, and the players didn't take it, it would reveal for a fact what the average hockey analyst already knows - that the NHLPA and Don Fehr forced this lockout as a power trip. This is no longer about money, this is about power and control of the NHL. If you want power and control, you have to accept responsibility..

The fact is that it's better for owners to give up part of that 7-14% than to have no season and give up 100%. However, giving it to players as cash is like giving a kid too much money as an allowance - he's just going to blow it. Put his college money in a mutual fund and make him earn it. The average NHL player has zero monetary sense - their agents do all of the work for them. They just spend the money, they don't invest it, or put it into anything, which is why Jaromir Jagr is still broke.

I'm sure that one day when your contract working for the NHLPA expires, you'll see things my way

AHockeyGameBrokeOut* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2012, 08:01 AM
  #58
AHockeyGameBrokeOut*
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
Country: United States
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
I was responding to your claim that "individual players SHOULD have more control over the teams they play for" and that four different groups with widely different motivations (owners, league, players, fans) want this to happen.

On a side note last I checked Lafontaine doesn't play for the Islanders.
You're right, sorry, the Player-Owner distinction still belongs to Mario Lemieux, the greatest hockey player that has ever lived. Lafontaine is late to the party!

Guess who threw a fit when Lemieux finally got in? The NHLPA. Owners loved it - CBA is conclusively becoming transparent as being entirely on Don Fehr's shoulders.

AHockeyGameBrokeOut* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2012, 08:01 AM
  #59
hatterson
Global Moderator
 
hatterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,964
vCash: 874
Send a message via Skype™ to hatterson
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHockeyGameBrokeOut View Post
The fact is that it's better for owners to give up part of that 7-14% than to have no season and give up 100%.
You do understand that this identical argument can be used on the other side as well, right?

It's better for the players to give up that 7-14% they want than to have no season and give up 100% of what they have.

__________________
2013/2014 NHL suspensions tracker - Here
2013/2014 Maple Leafs Prediction Contest Last 2 Games - 2013/04/10 @ Florida Panthers & 2013/04/12 @ Ottawa Senators
Come join us on the By The Numbers forum. Take a look at our introduction post if you're new. If you have any questions, feel free to PM me.
hatterson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2012, 08:02 AM
  #60
AHockeyGameBrokeOut*
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
Country: United States
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatterson View Post
You do understand that this identical argument can be used on the other side as well, right?

It's better for the players to give up that 7-14% they want than to have no season and give up 100% of what they have.
It's not identical. We know what the owners are spending the money on, because they have to prepare an approved team budget.

Have the players prepare us budgets so we know what they're going to spend the revenue on and then maybe it'll be identical.

Owners are still spending money according to that budget right now.

Players? What are they buying? Another case of Rothschild Chateau '69 to go with their new Aston Martin?

AHockeyGameBrokeOut* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2012, 08:48 AM
  #61
hatterson
Global Moderator
 
hatterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,964
vCash: 874
Send a message via Skype™ to hatterson
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHockeyGameBrokeOut View Post
It's not identical. We know what the owners are spending the money on, because they have to prepare an approved team budget.

Have the players prepare us budgets so we know what they're going to spend the revenue on and then maybe it'll be identical.

Owners are still spending money according to that budget right now.

Players? What are they buying? Another case of Rothschild Chateau '69 to go with their new Aston Martin?
That's not at all how a budget works, not to mention that team budgets aren't public...

If I budget $10,000 per home game to pay my arena workers (ushers, ticket takers, security etc.) I don't have to still pay out $410,000 if the entire season is cancelled.

Yes, teams still do have expenses and employees to pay but their costs are very significantly lower under a lockout than in a normal season, even excluding player costs.

In addition, the players also have expenses. They have mortgages to pay, they have kids to take to the doctor, groceries to buy, car loans to pay off. Even then, that doesn't consider the opportunity cost of a missed season. Economically, having $5 and spending it, and having $0 with an opportunity to make $5 but not taking it, are the same. Both cost you $5.

A player who has a 5-7 year career (the majority of the NHLPA) giving up 15-20% of it so that he can make 10% more per year actually hurt himself financially. An owner doesn't have a 5-7 year career, they have a 20-30+ year 'career' and also have a valuable good to sell at the end of it.

Generally speaking, owners of sports teams have a significant advantage over players in lockout situations because they have longer to make back the losses and have the value of their franchise increase as a result of increased profitability (if the lockout is successful in reducing player compensation)

hatterson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2012, 08:55 AM
  #62
AHockeyGameBrokeOut*
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
Country: United States
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatterson View Post
That's not at all how a budget works, not to mention that team budgets aren't public...

If I budget $10,000 per home game to pay my arena workers (ushers, ticket takers, security etc.) I don't have to still pay out $410,000 if the entire season is cancelled.

Yes, teams still do have expenses and employees to pay but their costs are very significantly lower under a lockout than in a normal season, even excluding player costs.

In addition, the players also have expenses. They have mortgages to pay, they have kids to take to the doctor, groceries to buy, car loans to pay off. Even then, that doesn't consider the opportunity cost of a missed season. Economically, having $5 and spending it, and having $0 with an opportunity to make $5 but not taking it, are the same. Both cost you $5.

A player who has a 5-7 year career (the majority of the NHLPA) giving up 15-20% of it so that he can make 10% more per year actually hurt himself financially. An owner doesn't have a 5-7 year career, they have a 20-30+ year 'career' and also have a valuable good to sell at the end of it.

Generally speaking, owners of sports teams have a significant advantage over players in lockout situations because they have longer to make back the losses and have the value of their franchise increase as a result of increased profitability (if the lockout is successful in reducing player compensation)
Unfortunately, that IS how a publicly financed team works. The city provides them with a loan which must be paid over a fixed number of years, or it will incur interest. Season or no season, the owners will still be paying off that loan. The loan number that the city allocates IS public.

Do you know where that loan money comes from? It comes from the taxpayers who reside in those cities. Try to tell those people earning $40,000 a year that the hockey player making millions needs more cash to 'feed his family' and see if they don't laugh right in your face.

Poor, starving hockey players...

AHockeyGameBrokeOut* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2012, 09:57 AM
  #63
Hockey Team
Hunger Force
 
Hockey Team's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHockeyGameBrokeOut View Post
Unfortunately, that IS how a publicly financed team works. The city provides them with a loan which must be paid over a fixed number of years, or it will incur interest. Season or no season, the owners will still be paying off that loan. The loan number that the city allocates IS public.

Do you know where that loan money comes from? It comes from the taxpayers who reside in those cities. Try to tell those people earning $40,000 a year that the hockey player making millions needs more cash to 'feed his family' and see if they don't laugh right in your face.

Poor, starving hockey players...
He didn't say that the team doesn't incur any expenses during a lockout, he said the expenses are significantly REDUCED.

Hockey Team is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2012, 09:59 AM
  #64
hatterson
Global Moderator
 
hatterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,964
vCash: 874
Send a message via Skype™ to hatterson
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHockeyGameBrokeOut View Post
Unfortunately, that IS how a publicly financed team works. The city provides them with a loan which must be paid over a fixed number of years, or it will incur interest. Season or no season, the owners will still be paying off that loan. The loan number that the city allocates IS public.

Do you know where that loan money comes from? It comes from the taxpayers who reside in those cities. Try to tell those people earning $40,000 a year that the hockey player making millions needs more cash to 'feed his family' and see if they don't laugh right in your face.

Poor, starving hockey players...
NHL teams aren't publicly financed. How many teams even have any public/government loans?

Also, paying off a loan is fundamentally different than paying operating expenses. Paying off a loan helps the financial situation of the company as it is now in better shape from a debt:income and debt:value ratio. Certainly owners prefer to make debt payments from profits rather than from external accounts, however they're much more willing to take losses resulting from debt payments than virtually any other loss.


No one said the players were poor, however to say they don't have bills to pay is silly. And, unlike the majority of owners, the players sole source of income is the NHL. The majority of players are cut off from making money at anywhere near the level they're accustomed to which can quickly lead to financial issues

hatterson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2012, 11:10 AM
  #65
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHockeyGameBrokeOut View Post
Unfortunately, that IS how a publicly financed team works. The city provides them with a loan which must be paid over a fixed number of years, or it will incur interest. Season or no season, the owners will still be paying off that loan. The loan number that the city allocates IS public.
There are no "publicly financed teams" - only some teams which play in publicly financed arenas.

No publicly financed arena that I know of was done as a loan to the team. Cities typically sold bonds for construction and serviced the debts with a combination of fixed team rent (typically only a fraction of the P&I costs), generated sales tax revenues, dedicated taxes (per ticket surcharges, hotel and car rental taxes), other revenues (casino $$$'s), and general funds in case of shortfalls.

During the Lockout, only the fixed rent payments of their Leases are fixed costs.

Now, those teams which financed their own arenas - *cough* New Jersey *cough* - well, that's a different story.

And where are all the new shares going to come from to provide new options to players a year from now, five years, ten? Either the teams will have to do significant stock buybacks - thus negating your "ending the need to give them actual revenue this year, or any year" argument - or issuing new stock, diluting the value of all existing shareholders.

And I'd love to see the players reactions when a team has operating losses - are you going to make shareholders subject to cash calls and what happens if a team files for Chapter 11, potentially making existing shares worthless.

kdb209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2012, 01:35 PM
  #66
Hockey Team
Hunger Force
 
Hockey Team's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
There are no "publicly financed teams" - only some teams which play in publicly financed arenas.

No publicly financed arena that I know of was done as a loan to the team. Cities typically sold bonds for construction and serviced the debts with a combination of fixed team rent (typically only a fraction of the P&I costs), generated sales tax revenues, dedicated taxes (per ticket surcharges, hotel and car rental taxes), other revenues (casino $$$'s), and general funds in case of shortfalls.

During the Lockout, only the fixed rent payments of their Leases are fixed costs.

Now, those teams which financed their own arenas - *cough* New Jersey *cough* - well, that's a different story.

And where are all the new shares going to come from to provide new options to players a year from now, five years, ten? Either the teams will have to do significant stock buybacks - thus negating your "ending the need to give them actual revenue this year, or any year" argument - or issuing new stock, diluting the value of all existing shareholders.

And I'd love to see the players reactions when a team has operating losses - are you going to make shareholders subject to cash calls and what happens if a team files for Chapter 11, potentially making existing shares worthless.
That's another thing.. not only would owners not want to do this, players don't want to do it either. They aren't public company CEOs who's job it is to basically game wall street (One of the main jobs of a public company CEO is to make the company look good to wall street), so they have a good understanding of stocks and options.

Most players probably don't even know what a stock option is, and we're talking about giving that to them as a big chunk of their compensation? Players don't want to play some BS wall street game, they just want straight up cash.

Hockey Team is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-03-2012, 02:46 AM
  #67
AHockeyGameBrokeOut*
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
Country: United States
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb209 View Post
There are no "publicly financed teams" - only some teams which play in publicly financed arenas.

No publicly financed arena that I know of was done as a loan to the team. Cities typically sold bonds for construction and serviced the debts with a combination of fixed team rent (typically only a fraction of the P&I costs), generated sales tax revenues, dedicated taxes (per ticket surcharges, hotel and car rental taxes), other revenues (casino $$$'s), and general funds in case of shortfalls.

During the Lockout, only the fixed rent payments of their Leases are fixed costs.

Now, those teams which financed their own arenas - *cough* New Jersey *cough* - well, that's a different story.

And where are all the new shares going to come from to provide new options to players a year from now, five years, ten? Either the teams will have to do significant stock buybacks - thus negating your "ending the need to give them actual revenue this year, or any year" argument - or issuing new stock, diluting the value of all existing shareholders.

And I'd love to see the players reactions when a team has operating losses - are you going to make shareholders subject to cash calls and what happens if a team files for Chapter 11, potentially making existing shares worthless.
Team owners are on the hook for those deals. Look at Glendale and the Coyotes, the most prominent example possible. The City of Glendale is the reason the Phoenix Coyotes are an NHL franchise. The Players don't owe those dues, the team owner does. THE ARENA AND THE TEAM ARE ONE AND THE SAME, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES. Without an arena, you have no hockey team. Point blank, period.

The value of stock itself would naturally increase, which would result in stock splits. There would be more shares on the market, but they'd still be worth more than the initial valuation. Share prices naturally grow in an expanding business. The NHL's exponential revenue growth to 3.4 billion is a gospel testament to the fact that stock prices will grow as well. Furthermore, the league could use the additional profits to give us even more franchises. Quebec is getting another team in 2015. Minnesota may get a second NHL team by 2020. California has room for at least 3 more teams (in San Francisco, San Diego and Sacramento). There will be more teams created and even more revenue to go around. By 2025 there may be as many as 40 NHL franchises.

I'd subject them to cash calls in a heartbeat. You want ownership, ownership means responsibility. If the team goes under, you lose everything. That's what ownership means. There's a disturbing lack of accountability in society today, and that same accountability is the reason we have a recession, a lockout, and everything else that is wrong with the world. Accountability and responsibility must be enforced by any means necessary.

What the players want is a handout. Money which is given without the promise of additional work-related responsibility is just that - a handout. NHLPA is lucky they get anything at all, and a number of the players may wind up using that money to invest in extra security after some of the ridiculous statements they've made during this off-season.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Team View Post
That's another thing.. not only would owners not want to do this, players don't want to do it either. They aren't public company CEOs who's job it is to basically game wall street (One of the main jobs of a public company CEO is to make the company look good to wall street), so they have a good understanding of stocks and options.

Most players probably don't even know what a stock option is, and we're talking about giving that to them as a big chunk of their compensation? Players don't want to play some BS wall street game, they just want straight up cash.
So, basically you admit the players are acting like little spoiled children? All the more reason to side with the league and the owners.

AHockeyGameBrokeOut* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-03-2012, 10:47 AM
  #68
hatterson
Global Moderator
 
hatterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,964
vCash: 874
Send a message via Skype™ to hatterson
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHockeyGameBrokeOut View Post
The value of stock itself would naturally increase, which would result in stock splits. There would be more shares on the market, but they'd still be worth more than the initial valuation. Share prices naturally grow in an expanding business. The NHL's exponential revenue growth to 3.4 billion is a gospel testament to the fact that stock prices will grow as well.
How do increasing stock prices and stock splits affect the fact that the corporation would still have to be giving out more stock. A stock split wouldn't magically place more shares in the hands of the corporation, it just means that everyone has double (or triple) the number of shares they used to have and they're worth half the price.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AHockeyGameBrokeOut View Post
Furthermore, the league could use the additional profits to give us even more franchises. Quebec is getting another team in 2015. Minnesota may get a second NHL team by 2020. California has room for at least 3 more teams (in San Francisco, San Diego and Sacramento). There will be more teams created and even more revenue to go around. By 2025 there may be as many as 40 NHL franchises.
This doesn't even make sense. It seems as if you're wrapping about 3 different ideas into one proposal, and then ignoring half of about each idea which results in a concept that is neither good nor bad, it's just simply incoherent.

Idea 1: Offer the players a share of ownership in lieu of a higher percentage of revenue.

Idea 2: Create some NHL super corporate entity where teams are simply locations in the corporation not independent entities who have formed a league together (only real way to use profits to create new teams on a league scale)

Idea 3: Offer this new NHL corporation publicly.

The issue with idea 1 is that, while it might appease current players it does nothing for future negotiations. If I give current players 10% of ownership now for a 10 year CBA what happens in 10 years when 98% of the old players are now retired? Do I have to up my compensation to the new players or do I have to offer them ownership as well?

The issues with idea 2 are far too numerous to mention all of them but a small sample include massive anti-trust issues, significant issues about share of ownership of the new corporation for the various team owners and massive regulatory issues to prevent game fixing.

The issue with idea 3 is that it doesn't really have a point. One you have this NHL corporation what advantages does a transition to a public company provide? Sure it'll raise some capital for the company, but where does that get used? Expansion? The issue now is that we're already having trouble keeping some franchises afloat, how is adding more going to help?


Quote:
Originally Posted by AHockeyGameBrokeOut View Post
I'd subject them to cash calls in a heartbeat. You want ownership, ownership means responsibility. If the team goes under, you lose everything. That's what ownership means. There's a disturbing lack of accountability in society today, and that same accountability is the reason we have a recession, a lockout, and everything else that is wrong with the world. Accountability and responsibility must be enforced by any means necessary.
Players fundamentally don't want to be owners. They want to get a higher share (compared to owners current CBA offer) of the revenue they help generate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AHockeyGameBrokeOut View Post
What the players want is a handout. Money which is given without the promise of additional work-related responsibility is just that - a handout. NHLPA is lucky they get anything at all, and a number of the players may wind up using that money to invest in extra security after some of the ridiculous statements they've made during this off-season.
How is the NHLPA lucky they get anything at all? They've helped make the owners (at least most of them) boatloads of money (profits and increased franchise value) and they have a legal right to collectively bargain for their working conditions. Also, how is "Money which is given without the promise of additional work-related responsibility" a "handout" Most people would refer to "Money which is given without the promise of additional work-related responsibility" as a normal raise. Asking for a raise isn't asking for a handout, it's asking for your compensation to be more in line with your value to the company. Certainly there can be debate over what that value is, and what your compensation should be, but asking for a raise (or in this case, asking to not have your pay cut) is fundamentally not a handout.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AHockeyGameBrokeOut View Post
So, basically you admit the players are acting like little spoiled children? All the more reason to side with the league and the owners.
Players do something that is economically simple (play hockey) and are looking for economically simple compensation for that (a paycheck). It's the same as I do at my job. I do something that is economically simple (write software) and I expect to be compensated in an economically simple way (a paycheck). If I did something that is economically complex (upper management) then it would be more reasonable to receive economically complex compensation (stock options, etc.)

hatterson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-03-2012, 12:28 PM
  #69
AHockeyGameBrokeOut*
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
Country: United States
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatterson View Post
How do increasing stock prices and stock splits affect the fact that the corporation would still have to be giving out more stock. A stock split wouldn't magically place more shares in the hands of the corporation, it just means that everyone has double (or triple) the number of shares they used to have and they're worth half the price.
It also doubles (or triples) the amount of unowned shares. Greater demand for greater supply means that more people have the opportunity to buy-in and this creates greater volume. Suddenly, the stock is affordable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hatterson View Post

Idea 1: Offer the players a share of ownership in lieu of a higher percentage of revenue.
Shares.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hatterson View Post
Idea 2: Create some NHL super corporate entity where teams are simply locations in the corporation not independent entities who have formed a league together (only real way to use profits to create new teams on a league scale)
A conglomerate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hatterson View Post
Idea 3: Offer this new NHL corporation publicly.
A public multinational conglomerate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hatterson View Post
The issue with idea 1 is that, while it might appease current players it does nothing for future negotiations. If I give current players 10% of ownership now for a 10 year CBA what happens in 10 years when 98% of the old players are now retired? Do I have to up my compensation to the new players or do I have to offer them ownership as well?
By that time, there will be different owners. The old players will be the new owners. Future negotiations will have current players on the other side of the table. So yes, it does a lot for future negotiations.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hatterson View Post
The issues with idea 2 are far too numerous to mention all of them but a small sample include massive anti-trust issues, significant issues about share of ownership of the new corporation for the various team owners and massive regulatory issues to prevent game fixing.
That's simple tinfoil hat paranoia. Game fixing will never happen under any circumstances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hatterson View Post
The issue with idea 3 is that it doesn't really have a point. One you have this NHL corporation what advantages does a transition to a public company provide? Sure it'll raise some capital for the company, but where does that get used? Expansion? The issue now is that we're already having trouble keeping some franchises afloat, how is adding more going to help?
The additional capital can be used to save those currently struggling franchises. The stock expansion allows the general public to own part of the league, thus giving them a greater control. The fans can in turn be influential in preventing lockouts.



Quote:
Originally Posted by hatterson View Post
Players fundamentally don't want to be owners. They want to get a higher share (compared to owners current CBA offer) of the revenue they help generate.
The average 19-27 year old NHLer does not. Their agent does all that, they just play hockey. The average 30+ year old in the NHL is a bit more mature, having seen the world outside of the league. The problem with the NHLPA is all the hotshot kids (who, while they are great hockey players - know nothing about money or business) are calling the shots. Once a player turns 30+ he recognizes he's not going to be playing hockey forever and he needs a backup plan. Let the adults make those decisions, who cares what the kids want, no matter how good they are on the ice.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hatterson View Post
How is the NHLPA lucky they get anything at all? They've helped make the owners (at least most of them) boatloads of money (profits and increased franchise value) and they have a legal right to collectively bargain for their working conditions. Also, how is "Money which is given without the promise of additional work-related responsibility" a "handout" Most people would refer to "Money which is given without the promise of additional work-related responsibility" as a normal raise. Asking for a raise isn't asking for a handout, it's asking for your compensation to be more in line with your value to the company. Certainly there can be debate over what that value is, and what your compensation should be, but asking for a raise (or in this case, asking to not have your pay cut) is fundamentally not a handout.
One, they are asking for a raise. 57% of 3.4 is more than 57% of 2.1. Even 48% of 3.4 is more than 57% of 2.1 by at least 500 million. The players are getting a raise this year regardless - because all of hockey got a raise. The problem is, they're not happy with 1.632 billion, they want 1.938. Raises are given based on tenure and job role. Generally, they're given to specific employees who go beyond their job responsibilities. A blanket raise IS a handout. It doesn't say 'you (individually) did a great job, I'm raising your pay' - it's the equivalent of a minimum wage hike. If the owners and league were smart, they'd do what most corporations in the US do - give the players that additional 7-9%, but then increase their league dues and agents fees to force them to pump that 7-9% back into the NHL right under their noses.



Quote:
Originally Posted by hatterson View Post
Players do something that is economically simple (play hockey) and are looking for economically simple compensation for that (a paycheck). It's the same as I do at my job. I do something that is economically simple (write software) and I expect to be compensated in an economically simple way (a paycheck). If I did something that is economically complex (upper management) then it would be more reasonable to receive economically complex compensation (stock options, etc.)
If playing hockey was economically simple, I think a lot more people would be playing hockey instead of whatever job they're doing right now.

AHockeyGameBrokeOut* 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 01:22 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.