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.
All's Fehr in Love and War (CBA & Lockout Discussion) - Part VII
I haven't been on in a cpl months so bare with me if topics all ready covered. I am soo amazed at the lack of support the players are receiving in the comments section on tsn. Imagine if your company is making more $$ than it ever has and your boss wants you to take a 24% cut just to line his pockets. Crazy just nuts. Plus all the owners offering all those huge contracts pre lock out makes sense now considering they planned on a 24% rebate IMO the owners are a joke!! They offered those contracts and should have to honor them!
There's been a lot written to that effect on this and the previous mega-thread, but the posts lately are decidedly more pro-management and increasingly frustrated as well.
There's another thread on the BOH that discusses a David Shoalt's column in the Globe and Mail this week that basically echoes what you're saying.
I don't understand why so many posters are so angry and are lining up behind the owners anyway.
As a Leafs fan, the entertainment value of the lockout is probably greater than the entertainment the Leafs would have provided this season anyway, and beyond that I'm sick and tired of the owners crying poor while the folks at Bell, Rogers and MLSE are in the back room counting the money. Lower the cap! Yeah! More profits! Like they need that. Like WE need that.
There's been a lot written to that effect on this and the previous mega-thread, but the posts lately are decidedly more pro-management and increasingly frustrated as well.
There's another thread on the BOH that discusses a David Shoalt's column in the Globe and Mail this week that basically echoes what you're saying.
I don't understand why so many posters are so angry and are lining up behind the owners anyway.
As a Leafs fan, the entertainment value of the lockout is probably greater than the entertainment the Leafs would have provided this season anyway, and beyond that I'm sick and tired of the owners crying poor while the folks at Bell, Rogers and MLSE are in the back room counting the money. Lower the cap! Yeah! More profits! Like they need that. Like WE need that.
Well I don't think the players should give one red cent back!! but lock in the cap at what it is now for how ever many years necessary until the split is 45/55 players/owners.
I haven't been on in a cpl months so bare with me if topics all ready covered. I am soo amazed at the lack of support the players are receiving in the comments section on tsn. Imagine if your company is making more $$ than it ever has and your boss wants you to take a 24% cut just to line his pockets. Crazy just nuts. Plus all the owners offering all those huge contracts pre lock out makes sense now considering they planned on a 24% rebate IMO the owners are a joke!! They offered those contracts and should have to honor them!
answer me this. As revenues go up, the players still get 57% without paying any expenses. The Owners are paying more expenses and losing more. Get it ? The same problem will happen again next contract with owners asking for 60%, and they will deserve it !!!
24% cut is not what the owners are sticking too, but your side has not really come down at all.
Well, if you've very clearly made your point so many times that you've become frustrated that it hasn't persuaded everyone, the possibility does exist that it really wasn't a very good point to begin with.
So, it's quite possible you might have to go over it again. Try bolding and underlining next time. That will surely add to the persuasive value of your thesis.
While you're at it, you could also address the other side of the coin, which is that the NHL could have sent its' opening offer over to the NHLPA any time it liked, and did not need to wait for the NHLPA's "permission" to do so.
There is also the thought that even if opening offers had been exchanged long ago, the collective bargaining process would probably not have advanced much further, if at all, by this time anyway because neither side seems inclined to succumb to the other side's position until games are lost or something else changes.
On second thought, you might need a little more than block letters, even with bold and underlining, to add something to the point you want to make.
Maybe it would be just as effective to go slam a door or something like that.
So your only real rebuttal is "well maybe we would still be where we are" and then some BS about my typing. Pretty solid argument you have working for you there
Well, if you've very clearly made your point so many times that you've become frustrated that it hasn't persuaded everyone, the possibility does exist that it really wasn't a very good point to begin with.
So, it's quite possible you might have to go over it again. Try bolding and underlining next time. That will surely add to the persuasive value of your thesis.
While you're at it, you could also address the other side of the coin, which is that the NHL could have sent its' opening offer over to the NHLPA any time it liked, and did not need to wait for the NHLPA's "permission" to do so.
There is also the thought that even if opening offers had been exchanged long ago, the collective bargaining process would probably not have advanced much further, if at all, by this time anyway because neither side seems inclined to succumb to the other side's position until games are lost or something else changes.
On second thought, you might need a little more than block letters, even with bold and underlining, to add something to the point you want to make.
Maybe it would be just as effective to go slam a door or something like that.
It doesn't matter.
The owners would have opened 3 months ago with 25 percent and we'd be in the same spot.
The starting day of negotiations has no impact on where we are. This is all about the pressure points, and we haven't hit those yet.
So your only real rebuttal is "well maybe we would still be where we are" and then some BS about my typing. Pretty solid argument you have working for you there
Why wouldn't we be?
Nothing starts moving until we hit pressure points.
The players are getting their checks from escrow or whatever.
Neither side has had reason to budge yet. Had this stated 3 months ago, we'd be here because neither side would have had reason to budget yet.
There is no magic agreement. Negotiating is pointless until one side decides they are ready to give.
answer me this. As revenues go up, the players still get 57% without paying any expenses. The Owners are paying more expenses and losing more. Get it ? The same problem will happen again next contract with owners asking for 60%, and they will deserve it !!!
24% cut is not what the owners are sticking too, but your side has not really come down at all.
1st off any give back by the players would mean giving back $$, how does this make any sense when the league is making more $$ than it ever has. The issue isn't player salary its the division of profit, go look on Forbes at what some teams make compared to others. This is fixed by the haves(Leafs, Habs, Rangers) giving a good chunk of their $$ to an account to cover the struggling clubs.
The billionaire owners deserve more $$$ WOW the same shady owners who gave HUGE contracts just prior to a lockout then want a 24% cut LMAO. I know some people see the $$ the players make and are like WTF but these a pro athletes, look at baseball, soccer, football, NBA they all get paid big $$ its just how it works. I know there are a ton of us who would play for free but who would pay to see that?? (our Mom's don't count )
So your only real rebuttal is "well maybe we would still be where we are" and then some BS about my typing. Pretty solid argument you have working for you there
You've probably been through negotiations yourself where timing is everything, and I think this is one of those situations.
Seriously, I don't think it would have mattered when they started to negotiate. In fact, many people think they haven't begun to negotiate yet and really won't do so until something changes in the power dynamic between the parties.
It seems that neither side will budge until they both see how the players react when they start missing paycheques. The owners probably anticipate the players will crack. I'm sure the players are hoping the owners will soften their stance if they demonstrate enough resolve and hold out long enough. None of us really know what's going to happen, and IF YOU DON'T MIND SOME COMIC RELIEF IT REALLY WOULDN'T HAVE MATTERED WHEN THE FIRST EXCHANGE OF OFFERS HAPPENED BECAUSE IT SHEDS NO LIGHT ON HOW THAT DYNAMIC WILL UNFOLD!!!
Sorry. The issue is a little more complicated than "How many times do I have to say this?""
1st off any give back by the players would mean giving back $$, how does this make any sense when the league is making more $$ than it ever has. The issue isn't player salary its the division of profit, go look on Forbes at what some teams make compared to others. This is fixed by the haves(Leafs, Habs, Rangers) giving a good chunk of their $$ to an account to cover the struggling clubs.
The billionaire owners deserve more $$$ WOW the same shady owners who gave HUGE contracts just prior to a lockout then want a 24% cut LMAO. I know some people see the $$ the players make and are like WTF but these a pro athletes, look at baseball, soccer, football, NBA they all get paid big $$ its just how it works. I know there are a ton of us who would play for free but who would pay to see that?? (our Mom's don't count )
you don't get it man. The owners make less of a percentage as revenues go up. They pay the expenses and the expenses go UP. The players don't pay expenses so the 57 % grows much quicker then 43 % with the full 100 % of expenses paid by the owners. By the way, the NBA, Baseball, Football players make less money then the NHL players based on total revenue.
you don't get it man. The owners make less of a percentage as revenues go up. They pay the expenses and the expenses go UP. The players don't pay expenses so the 57 % grows much quicker then 43 % with the full 100 % of expenses paid by the owners. By the way, the NBA, Baseball, Football players make less money then the NHL players based on total revenue.
That actually depends on how the rate of inflation compares to the rate of growth in revenue.
If revenue increased by roughly 50% and costs remained static, the owners profits would actually increase by more than 50%. I could give you examples with numbers if you like, but you can do the math yourself. Using any hypothetical numbers you like that meet these conditions, the result will be the same.
If both revenue and costs increased by 50%, profits would also increase by 50%.
If revenue increased by 50% and costs increased by more than 50%, then revenues would increase by less than 50% even to the point that teams that were profitable are put into a loss position.
Therefore, it is quite possible that the owners' profits have increased more than, the same as or less than the rate of increase in players' salaries.
The rate of increase in revenue is public knowledge. The rate of increase in costs is not publicly known. It is not possible to know what's happening on the profit side without access to that information.
That is probably why the players had such extensive review of the owners' books before preparing their own offers.
you don't get it man. The owners make less of a percentage as revenues go up. They pay the expenses and the expenses go UP. The players don't pay expenses so the 57 % grows much quicker then 43 % with the full 100 % of expenses paid by the owners. By the way, the NBA, Baseball, Football players make less money then the NHL players based on total revenue.
Wouldnt a healthy % of costs be fixed costs though, meaning that the cost is the same regardless of revenues /turnover? Rent on arenas, head office wages and costs etc would be a couple of examples.
I'm not disputing your position, just pointing out that not all costs increase in line with higher revenues
Wouldnt a healthy % of costs be fixed costs though, meaning that the cost is the same regardless of revenues /turnover? Rent on arenas, head office wages and costs etc would be a couple of examples.
I'm not disputing your position, just pointing out that not all costs increase in line with higher revenues
Which is why the HRR definition matters. Right now the NHL gets to write off as per the actual CBA agreement:
Publications 46%
Concessions 54%
Novelty 69% (i.e. team merchandise in or near the arena)
Parking 30%
Premium (club) seats 3%
Luxury suites 0%
This includes 'club affiliated entities' too, so to an extent the 'vertical integration' model is covered by the CBA. So technically if an owner directly owns the parking company, he can't just let that company manage the parking then pocket the revenue. Not to say that you couldn't make it work by being shady, but there is some provision for it.
So let's say you make $1M for selling crap at one home game. You write off roughly 50%. So your HRR after costs is $0.5M, of which you get to pocket 47% or $235k. THe other $265k goes to the players.
Of course you may not have been able to write off all your costs. I hear the average profit margin of a restaurant is around 4-6%, and a successful restaurant is <10%. So writing off 54% of concessions doesn't seem like the greatest deal when the arena isn't open as often as a restaurant is.
Also, the costs you think are fixed like front-office salary probably aren't. At the very least you are looking at CPI increases for those employees, and generally salaries will always go up. Also note that these are only cost writeoffs for money MADE. Since scouts, trainers, transportation, etc probably don't generate income the teams are probably left to swallow those expenses entirely.
Actually, I decided to look up the profit margins on the stand-alone industries corresponding to each team revenue stream. Honestly, it doesn't look good, which is probably why the NHL was so keen on trying to redefine HRR.
Publications 46% COSTS = magazines (10-30% PROFIT, 90-70% COSTS)
Concessions 54% COSTS = restaurants (10% PROFIT, 90% COSTS actually Forbes says 5% but that's the average)
Novelty 69% (i.e. team merchandise in or near the arena) = retail clothing (4-13% PROFIT, 96-87% COSTS) or Sporting/hobby stores (5% PROFIT, 95% COSTS)
Parking 30% = hard to say, but some report UK hospitals apparently have 500% PROFIT)
So the way it looks is that if each revenue stream of an NHL team were a standalone business, you'd be looking at (very generous) profit margins around 10%. Most estimates I found said rent was around 10%, which would still put your costs at 80% for most parts except parking. That means that after writing off 50% of your revenue as costs as allowed by the CBA, then having the players take the remaining 57%, as an owner you are seeing about 71.5 cents of every dollar made. It seems like this is cutting it pretty thin for most businesses out there. I'm not sure that you could necessarily rely on economy of scale here because although you have lots of people for each game, there aren't that many games relatively.
Basically the players lop off 28.5% of every dollar you make, 50% CAN go to OTHER costs, and then you get to try to make a profit and cover any FURTHER costs from the remaining 21.5%.
Somehow the NHLPA expects to reduce the HRR cost writeoffs, which to me seems like trying to squeeze blood from a stone. But those of you who have owned these kinds of businesses can educate me.
Last edited by mossey3535: 10-12-2012 at 02:44 AM.
Maybe, maybe not. They could have done all the non-core stuff out of the way during the summer and possibly advance in core-issues as well.
NHLPA refusing to start talking until june sure didn't help the process, that's pretty much certain.
If these two sides apparently can't even have a discussion about the issues that are causing this whole mess on the day the season was supposed to start, then there is no chance anything would have happened no matter when they started talking.
I haven't been on in a cpl months so bare with me if topics all ready covered. I am soo amazed at the lack of support the players are receiving in the comments section on tsn. Imagine if your company is making more $$ than it ever has and your boss wants you to take a 24% cut just to line his pockets. Crazy just nuts. Plus all the owners offering all those huge contracts pre lock out makes sense now considering they planned on a 24% rebate IMO the owners are a joke!! They offered those contracts and should have to honor them!
The players have seen their salaries rise something like 60-70% since the last lockout. The 24% cut argument gets thrown out a lot, without this context.
The players have seen their salaries rise something like 60-70% since the last lockout. The 24% cut argument gets thrown out a lot, without this context.
Do you think it's normal the top 10 wealthiest teams in the league cash $ 150 Million+ from the players right off the top? Whatever you might think of everything else in their offer, that takes huge balls on the part of the rich owners.
I haven't been on in a cpl months so bare with me if topics all ready covered. I am soo amazed at the lack of support the players are receiving in the comments section on tsn. Imagine if your company is making more $$ than it ever has and your boss wants you to take a 24% cut just to line his pockets. Crazy just nuts. Plus all the owners offering all those huge contracts pre lock out makes sense now considering they planned on a 24% rebate IMO the owners are a joke!! They offered those contracts and should have to honor them!
What people don't seem to understand is that record revenues does not equal record profits. Player's salaries have also increased by record numbers throughout the past 5 years, plus there's numerous other costs and expenses that the owners pay, and you can guarantee those costs have all increased as well.
But I do agree with honouring the contracts that have been signed. They just need to implement a system that gradually reduces the players share of HRR to a more acceptable number, without using roll backs or increases in escrow.
The players have seen their salaries rise something like 60-70% since the last lockout. The 24% cut argument gets thrown out a lot, without this context.
I agree. I don't get the complaining re the NHLPA waiting to negotiate.
Well of course not when you are looking at this whole mess thru NHLPA-tinted glasses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken
The problems at hand have nothing to do w/ both sides not having started negotiations a year ago.
Really? How do you KNOW this? That's easy to say after the NHLPA delayed talks for 8-9 months or more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken
Personally, I can't think of anything worse than these types of negotiations going on while the players were still playing. I'm sorry - but it would have been a disaster.
?? Why would it have been a disaster?
Don't the players have a representative that can negotiate for them? Isn't that just what they're doing right now?
hmmm, start earlier, maybe you finish earlier... (and then make more money... hmm no, let's wait)
Well of course not when you are looking at this whole mess thru NHLPA-tinted glasses.
Really? How do you KNOW this? That's easy to say after the NHLPA delayed talks for 8-9 months or more.
?? Why would it have been a disaster?
Don't the players have a representative that can negotiate for them? Isn't that just what they're doing right now?
hmmm, start earlier, maybe you finish earlier... (and then make more money... hmm no, let's wait)
IF the players could play under the CBA THEY WANT, infinitely until a deal is struck, tell me again why they would really negotiate?
They may give some concessions, like the owners dont have to pay for their professional toenail clipper to go on road trips, but there will be no significant concessions.
Unless of course you're talking about the players playing for free out of good faith... then yeah sure.
IF the players could play under the CBA THEY WANT, infinitely until a deal is struck, tell me again why they would really negotiate?
They may give some concessions, like the owners dont have to pay for their professional toenail clipper to go on road trips, but there will be no significant concessions.
Unless of course you're talking about the players playing for free out of good faith... then yeah sure.
Exactly. When it's obvious that the players will be having to make concessions on their % of HRR, what reason would they have to actually negotiate when they continue to reap the benefits of the previous CBA?
Why wouldn't we be?
Nothing starts moving until we hit pressure points.
The players are getting their checks from escrow or whatever.
Neither side has had reason to budge yet. Had this stated 3 months ago, we'd be here because neither side would have had reason to budget yet.
There is no magic agreement. Negotiating is pointless until one side decides they are ready to give.
And so far, that's not been the case.
Waiting for the pressure points just shows how stupid both sides are. I know personally, I tend to wait until my entire body is covered in flames before I ask for the water. But in this case, it won't be water, it'll be gasoline, since neither side is capable of negotiating like professionals.
Well I don't think the players should give one red cent back!! but lock in the cap at what it is now for how ever many years necessary until the split is 45/55 players/owners.
I agree Bobby...I think the players should hold out until they lose every red, white and blue cent they would have made playing hockey...that'll show those owners!
IMO the owners are a joke!! They offered those contracts and should have to honor them!
)
