HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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.

It's Not About Winning Or Losing. It's About Who Gets The Blame (CBA/Lockout) XVI

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-25-2012, 04:15 PM
  #51
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuffradio View Post
Having no cap didn't work before, so I don't see how you can think it would be better without one. The rich teams still got richer, and the poor teams still got poorer because they couldn't afford players.
That's where a luxury tax comes in, acting as a soft cap and providing revenue for small market teams to pay bills.

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:16 PM
  #52
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
And?

Look, I don't agree with a cap. IMO, the players, long-term, are better off with linkage. But they're going to hurt short-term.
Conversely, the owners are better off, long term, with a set hard cap. But they' have to endure short term pain.

But that's all beside the point. Which, by the way, seems to be lost now.
Maybe semantics and certainly not directed at you but the cap is not what limits salaries; the % of HRR is. The league could theoretically set the ceiling to 100m above the midpoint and all that would so is increase the amount the players pay back at the end of the season. The cap is good for hockey in the sense that gives teams like Phoenix a chance to compete against the big market teams.

Crease is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:17 PM
  #53
bluesfan94
#BackesforSelke
 
bluesfan94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,119
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtlPenFan View Post
- Maybe they should start flying coach instead of private first class. You know, go back to the good old days when they were taking flights at 4am.

- How about NOT giving them 100 bucks a day for food? (I know some lard ***** that wouldn't be able to spend that much on food in one day)

- How about they pay for their own 300 dollar hockey sticks?

- How about staying at the Comfort Inn instead of 5 star hotels?

- How about players buying memberships at the local gym instead of using the palaces (At Console for instance) that substitute for training facilities?

- How about they pay for their own massage therapists and trainers?
Would the players prefer this or lowering the cap?

bluesfan94 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:17 PM
  #54
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 25,806
vCash: 10592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Wow. Bill Daly strikes a stake through the heart of player haters everywhere.
"Let's remember that increased revenue and growth, no matter how substantial, does not equal increased profitability. It indicates a need to cut costs."

-Signed, the player haters

coldsteelonice84 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:17 PM
  #55
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
Maybe semantics and certainly not directed at you but the cap is not what limits salaries; the % of HRR is. The league could theoretically set the ceiling to 100m above the midpoint and all that would so is increase the amount the players pay back at the end of the season. The cap is good for hockey in the sense that gives teams like Phoenix a chance to compete against the big market teams.
A lot of good that's done.
7 years later and Phoenix is a money pit.

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:18 PM
  #56
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 15,740
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seanahue View Post
This is the very fist thing you have said that I agree with.
Contrary to the hard "pro-owner" stance I have taken, I do agree that they need to increase their revenue sharing.
The NHL's proposal did have increased revenue sharing, so I'm not sure what CB is crying about.

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:19 PM
  #57
waffledave
waffledave, from hf
 
waffledave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,430
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba Thudd View Post
A bit overly dramatic. I really don't think hockey continuing in America is centered around the Winter Classic. It's a single game.
It's the closest thing the NHL has to an event that appeals to non-fans.

Look at football...Even a non-football fan can tell you there is football on Thanksgiving. They can tell you there is a superbowl and they know the superbowl is on.

With hockey, they are trying to make the Winter Classic their "annual mass appeal" gimmick. The idea is that 5 years down the line, everyone knows that the Winter Classic is on New Year's Day. It's a thing.

They kill it after 3 years it becomes a gimmick and nobody cares. Already very few people care...They need it to happen regularly.

__________________
Yours in Christ,

waffledave
waffledave is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:19 PM
  #58
MtlPenFan
Registered User
 
MtlPenFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesfan94 View Post
Would the players prefer this or lowering the cap?
It's not about preferences. They pretty much want both.

MtlPenFan is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:20 PM
  #59
Huis Clos*
Creamy Hamstrings
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Ballarado
Country: United States
Posts: 6,020
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
The links and numbers have been posted and you continue to choose not to believe them.

I'm reminded of this this quote by Daniel Patrick Moynihan when seeing your posts (and others).

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Yeah, except Forbes' numbers aren't fact.

Huis Clos* is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:20 PM
  #60
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 15,740
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtlPenFan View Post
- Maybe they should start flying coach instead of private first class. You know, go back to the good old days when they were taking flights at 4am.

- How about NOT giving them 100 bucks a day for food? (I know some lard ***** that wouldn't be able to spend that much on food in one day)

- How about they pay for their own 300 dollar hockey sticks?

- How about staying at the Comfort Inn instead of 5 star hotels?

- How about players buying memberships at the local gym instead of using the palaces (At Console for instance) that substitute for training facilities?

- How about they pay for their own massage therapists and trainers?
This is essentially what I was looking for when I posted the question.

Would the NHLPA accept an offer that gave them their full contracts and cut all these perks? IMO they'd rather take 50/50 and all the perks.

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:22 PM
  #61
Artz19
Registered User
 
Artz19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
I don't know what point you are trying to make. Revenue inscreased substantially, costs increased marginally, ticket prices and attendance increased substantially on the whole. If you look at it strictly from the poor owners POV, sure, profits are non-existent. They need to figure that out for themselves, amongst themselves (the owners).
You used the salary cap as "Exhibit A" that the business is profitable.

That is false.

That is my point.

Artz19 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:22 PM
  #62
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
 
Motown Beatdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indianapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,554
vCash: 450
The players need to make the decision to accept or atleast work off the NHL's deal. The owners dont care about hockey, they only care about money and beating the union regardless of cost. Bettman is a bully who hides behind his radical band of 8 owners to veto any deal moderate owners could come up with. Sure it would be awersome to hear of another Bettman hissy fit like 95 but he made sure that would never happen again.

So it's upon them to get it done. Sure it sucks giving money to the blood sucking owners and i know unless Bettman and a few owners are gone in 7 years we will back at this again. But if they want hockey they need to move. Cause the like Jimmy D says, they are the cattle and the owners are the ranchers in their minds.

Motown Beatdown is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:23 PM
  #63
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 15,740
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hek View Post
Yeah, except Forbes' numbers aren't fact.
There have been many sources that have stated that there are many teams losing money.

Pierre said that he personally knew of 13 teams in the red last year IIRC.

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:23 PM
  #64
moosehead81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Great White North
Country: Canada
Posts: 841
vCash: 500
This is now past the ugly point. I still blame Bettman for about 75% of this mess; believe me, he makes the recommendations that the required number of owners follow (note I didn't say agree to) and that piss poor proposal off the bat set the table nicely for what followed. He wants to follow the NBA model but, unfortunately, he's up against a guy who wants to follow the MLB model. Both of these clowns seem to have their constituencies on side, although I can't believe that there's a 100% approval rating from the owners over where this seems to be going (I'd almost bet he'd be lucky to get a 50% approval rating; maybe Fehr's in the same boat- hard to tell).

And where I fear it's going is that the league will just simply blow up into something that will take 2 or 3 or 4 years to recover from. Yeah, maybe they bring in replacements next year and hope current players return. But then you have a league where the "best" players in the world will not be playing and maybe there's 24 teams instead of the 30. Now maybe this would be a good thing in the long run, but it's going to take some time to establish itself and I just hate the thought of going 2-3-4 years without good hockey.

moosehead81 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:23 PM
  #65
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
"Let's remember that increased revenue and growth, no matter how substantial, does not equal increased profitability. It indicates a need to cut costs."

-Signed, the player haters
Player hater have been crying for weeks that they must have linkage and that even projecting 5 percent is dangerous and risky.

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:24 PM
  #66
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
Jiggy deflected this question in the last thread so I'll ask it again:

Many NHL teams are losing money, which means they have to cut costs. What costs do you (or any pro-NHLPA poster) suggest they cut if they aren't allowed to cut player's salaries?
There is no good answer if you are a player, because it is obvious.

It is kind of like asking a U.S. politician what has to be cut in order to balance the budget. None of them want to say defense, medicare, and social security benefits, even though it is the only answer that is possible.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:25 PM
  #67
Huis Clos*
Creamy Hamstrings
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Ballarado
Country: United States
Posts: 6,020
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
There have been many sources that have stated that there are many teams losing money.

Pierre said that he personally knew of 13 teams in the red last year IIRC.
That's lovely. Does he have access to their books?

Huis Clos* is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:26 PM
  #68
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Wow. Bill Daly strikes a stake through the heart of player haters everywhere.
Expecting growth doesn't necessarily mean an owner wants to put himself in the position where he assumes risk should growth NOT pan out the way it is expected to.

I don't expect my house to burn down, but I'm not willing to assume risk by cancelling my home insurance. Reality suggests that while there are factors within my control to avoid my house setting on fire, there are also factors beyond my control that could cause a fire. While I'll save money by not paying for home insurance, I make the conscious decision that those savings simply aren't worth the damage of what a worse case scenario may be. The chances of ever having my house burn down is actually very little so I may end up paying home insurance for the rest of my life and never have to use it, but it's within my right to seek that protection...after all, it's my house.

Ari91 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:26 PM
  #69
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,175
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
Jiggy deflected this question in the last thread so I'll ask it again:

Many NHL teams are losing money, which means they have to cut costs. What costs do you (or any pro-NHLPA poster) suggest they cut if they aren't allowed to cut player's salaries?

But most of them can cut player salaries. Buffalo didn't need to give Ehrhoff $10 million last season, give Leino $6 million last season, give Myers a $10 million signing bonus, or pay Kotalik $3 million to play in Europe. Tampa didn't need to sign Lecavalier for $10 million a season until his late 30s or sign broken down defensemen like Ohlund and Salo and pay them nearly $10 million combined in salary. Columbus didn't need to pay Wisniewski $7 million a year in salary for the first few years of his contract or so badly mismanage their team that they need to sell players like Nash and Carter for pennies on the dollar.

The owners as a whole should get a higher share of revenues (and any realistic CBA will see them get a much higher share), but that doesn't absolve some of the money losing teams from their poor management decisions. With good management many of these teams could be in a much better financial situation with no drop off in product. A 50/50 split isn't going to make teams like Buffalo (#19 in revenue, #1 in salary) or Minnesota (#14 in revenue, #2 in salary) profitable nor is it going to undo 14 years of letting Doug MacLean and Scott Howson run a team.

opendoor is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:27 PM
  #70
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
The NHL's proposal did have increased revenue sharing, so I'm not sure what CB is crying about.
How much increased revenue share vs how much in concessions

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:28 PM
  #71
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
There is no good answer if you are a player, because it is obvious.

It is kind of like asking a U.S. politician what has to be cut in order to balance the budget. None of them want to say defense, medicare, and social security benefits, even though it is the only answer that is possible.
Drop the salary cap. Drop the salary floor.
Come up with a business plan to make money.

If you can't afford Crosby.. well big deal. I can't afford a Porsche.
That's life.

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:30 PM
  #72
bluesfan94
#BackesforSelke
 
bluesfan94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,119
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtlPenFan View Post
It's not about preferences. They pretty much want both.
I highly doubt the players truly want to lose all of those amenities.

bluesfan94 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:30 PM
  #73
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
Jiggy deflected this question in the last thread so I'll ask it again:

Many NHL teams are losing money, which means they have to cut costs. What costs do you (or any pro-NHLPA poster) suggest they cut if they aren't allowed to cut player's salaries?
No, it means they have to spend less money than they receive - which can be done by reducing the amount they payout, increasing the amount of money they are getting in, or a combination of the two.

UsernameWasTaken is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:32 PM
  #74
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
 
Motown Beatdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indianapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,554
vCash: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Drop the salary cap. Drop the salary floor.
Come up with a business plan to make money.

If you can't afford Crosby.. well big deal. I can't afford a Porsche.
That's life.
And even if you can afford one doesn't mean you have to own one.

Motown Beatdown is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:32 PM
  #75
TCsmyth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motown Beatdown View Post
The players need to make the decision to accept or atleast work off the NHL's deal. The owners dont care about hockey, they only care about money and beating the union regardless of cost. Bettman is a bully who hides behind his radical band of 8 owners to veto any deal moderate owners could come up with. Sure it would be awersome to hear of another Bettman hissy fit like 95 but he made sure that would never happen again.

So it's upon them to get it done. Sure it sucks giving money to the blood sucking owners and i know unless Bettman and a few owners are gone in 7 years we will back at this again. But if they want hockey they need to move. Cause the like Jimmy D says, they are the cattle and the owners are the ranchers in their minds.
This seems way over the top to me. The owner of my team cares a tremendous amount about hockey - and believe it or not - he cares about his players also...sorry to rain on your generalization.

Find one current or former player that ever said Mark Chipman does not care about hockey or his players...really tough to do.

TCsmyth 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 06:29 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.