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, 05:33 PM
  #76
bishop12
Ovyously
 
bishop12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,708
vCash: 500
I hope the NHL folds.

bishop12 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:33 PM
  #77
W75
Wegistewed Usew
 
W75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 4,016
vCash: 626
Give it all to NHLPA. 100%. And let them run the league. Let's see how it goes. It could be fun to watch when NHLPA locks out its players after a couple of seasons

W75 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:33 PM
  #78
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
How much increased revenue share vs how much in concessions
The league is increasing RS by $50M ABSOLUTE dollars...as in real, guaranteed money. What ABSOLUTE dollars are the players conceding?

I don't want to hear about projected growth and future revenue, I'm talking about REAL concessions as in REAL money.

They haven't conceded real revenue, they also haven't conceded on contractual rights. In fact, they haven't even talked about it except saying they don't like the changes the league has proposed.

Ari91 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:33 PM
  #79
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
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.
Well of course. So why aren't player salaries on the top of that list? Or player perks?

Oh I'm sorry, we'd much prefer to fire normal working people who are employed by the club than give a bunch of millionaires a slight paycut - that still allows them to make millions of dollars.

mossey3535 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:35 PM
  #80
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
It's so strange to hear all these people demanding the players take less because that's how business works.
Businesses can simply choose to not spend. If they can't keep up with the Joneses, they shouldn't try.
Salary caps? Salary floors? Damn ridiculous.

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:35 PM
  #81
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
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.
Why would a single company with 30 profit centers want to implement an "eat or be eaten" system?

The only reason why MLB doesn't have a salary cap is because between luxury tax and national tv deals there's enough money to keep the have-nots afloat.

Crease is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:35 PM
  #82
LPHabsFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,416
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LPHabsFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
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.
And which one of those can you actually control?

I would also argue that they are trying to do just that. Cut player costs (reduce the share) and increase revenue sharing (not so much bring in more money but distribute it more towards where it's needed).

LPHabsFan is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:36 PM
  #83
LPHabsFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,416
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LPHabsFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
It's so strange to hear all these people demanding the players take less because that's how business works.
Businesses can simply choose to not spend. If they can't keep up with the Joneses, they shouldn't try.
Salary caps? Salary floors? Damn ridiculous.
Well...this business is deciding to implement a floor and a cap. That is their decision.

LPHabsFan is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:38 PM
  #84
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
It's so strange to hear all these people demanding the players take less because that's how business works.
Businesses can simply choose to not spend. If they can't keep up with the Joneses, they shouldn't try.
Salary caps? Salary floors? Damn ridiculous.
If you're not toronto, your player expenditures increase your gate if they help your team win. So you can't simply just choose not to spend in the long run. Otherwise you're just looking at the Oilers when they used to develop players and then immediately give them up to another franchise.

Besides, 'free-market' isn't all it's cracked up to be. Most of the English Premier League is losing money. Even UEFA is embracing 'fiscal responsibility'.

mossey3535 is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:38 PM
  #85
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
Why would a single company with 30 profit centers want to implement an "eat or be eaten" system?

The only reason why MLB doesn't have a salary cap is because between luxury tax and national tv deals there's enough money to keep the have-nots afloat.

Eat or be eaten? Pretty overdramatic.

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:38 PM
  #86
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,701
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?
You were told this at least three times already...

A majority of contracts under this CBA expire within two years. All contracts going fwd would be at 50%.

If a team can't make money this way, with increased revenue sharing added in, then I call that incompetent mgmt.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:40 PM
  #87
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
You were told this at least three times already...

A majority of contracts under this CBA expire within two years. All contracts going fwd would be at 50%.

If a team can't make money this way, with increased revenue sharing added in, then I call that incompetent mgmt.
You'd still have more than 500 contracts in 2015-16

Krishna is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:40 PM
  #88
Seanahue
Registered User
 
Seanahue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 2,800
vCash: 109
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.
The removal of the salary cap would start a new dark age for the NHL. How much parity is there in MLB? How many different teams have won the championship in the last 10 years?

You will have the same teams at the bottom for years to come because UFA's would be headed to the same 5 teams.

It's amazing how many pro-player people around here want to destroy the game so Crosby can make 15 mil/year instead of 10.

Seanahue is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:40 PM
  #89
LPHabsFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,416
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LPHabsFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
You were told this at least three times already...

A majority of contracts under this CBA expire within two years. All contracts going fwd would be at 50%.

If a team can't make money this way, with increased revenue sharing added in, then I call that incompetent mgmt.
Except that the teams appear to not be able to sustain themselves right now given the current percentage of player costs. That's why the immediate drop or deferred payments. I agree that the make whole provision would have to be modified though.

The problem is, the NHLPA is not yet willing to agree to straight up linkage.

LPHabsFan is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:40 PM
  #90
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
If you're not toronto, your player expenditures increase your gate if they help your team win. So you can't simply just choose not to spend in the long run. Otherwise you're just looking at the Oilers when they used to develop players and then immediately give them up to another franchise.

Besides, 'free-market' isn't all it's cracked up to be. Most of the English Premier League is losing money. Even UEFA is embracing 'fiscal responsibility'.

Well, for one, the Oilers are now a money making franchise.
For two, the level of the luxury sharing can be shifted/changed each CBA.

The point is that even with 50-50, two years from now, with the growth pattern we've seen, you're going to have businesses losing money.


Nothing in the owners' proposal fixes that.

So drop linkage. Drop the cap. Drop the floor. Stop forcing owners to lose money.

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:41 PM
  #91
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
If you understood things about diets and budgets, you'd know that "lard *****" typically eat crappy, cheap food that's bad for you.

Shop at stores with good, quality food, or eat at restaurants with good, quality food, and see what happens to your budget.
We do the later on a semi-regular basis, albeit less on the restaurants, and manage perfectly well on a low budget.

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.
You recall a decade back when Chicago would make Florida look decent by comparison? If so, you would also recall their woeful stability. But yes, let us go back to a system where that could happen again. Will you blame the owners when teams begin to fold and players are now out of a job?

Bourne Endeavor is online now  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:41 PM
  #92
Turbofan
The Full 60 Minutes
 
Turbofan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,400
vCash: 844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
You were told this at least three times already...

A majority of contracts under this CBA expire within two years. All contracts going fwd would be at 50%.

If a team can't make money this way, with increased revenue sharing added in, then I call that incompetent mgmt.
Majority? I thought someone crunched it and it was maybe like 40%. So 'Offer 3' was more like 53.5/46.5.

Turbofan is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:42 PM
  #93
LPHabsFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,416
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LPHabsFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Well, for one, the Oilers are now a money making franchise.
For two, the level of the luxury sharing can be shifted/changed each CBA.

The point is that even with 50-50, two years from now, with the growth pattern we've seen, you're going to have businesses losing money.


Nothing in the owners' proposal fixes that.

So drop linkage. Drop the cap. Drop the floor. Stop forcing owners to lose money.
They don't want to do that and given that it's their business, they have that right.

LPHabsFan is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:43 PM
  #94
Tra La La
Registered User
 
Tra La La's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Buffalo, New York
Country: Ireland
Posts: 4,715
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
That's where a luxury tax comes in, acting as a soft cap and providing revenue for small market teams to pay bills.
Umm the leagues first proposal included trading cap space,(softening the cap). The players rejected it.

Tra La La is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:43 PM
  #95
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,934
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
Well of course. So why aren't player salaries on the top of that list? Or player perks?

Oh I'm sorry, we'd much prefer to fire normal working people who are employed by the club than give a bunch of millionaires a slight paycut - that still allows them to make millions of dollars.
Another way of looking at it is the teams themselves would rather fire "normal working people" than acknowledge that as a result of their own poor financial decisions some of the teams don't get to instantaneously move from 'in the red' to 'in the black'.

The players' % of HRR should be reduce, revenue sharing should be increased, and some of the teams should have to realize that there's going to be a waiting period for them to start making money.

In any event, the cuts the NHL is proposing aren't simply because some teams are losing money - they're being made because, as Bettman himself has conceded, the teams simply feel that they're paying too much in salary. For some teams, they need to reduce salaries because of financial necessity - but not all of the teams. Some of the teams (including teams where some of the so-called "hardliners" are from are making a lot of money).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
You were told this at least three times already...

A majority of contracts under this CBA expire within two years. All contracts going fwd would be at 50%.

If a team can't make money this way, with increased revenue sharing added in, then I call that incompetent mgmt.
I think we've already established that as an obvious element of many NHL teams

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
That's where a luxury tax comes in, acting as a soft cap and providing revenue for small market teams to pay bills.
I have no problem with a luxury tax.

UsernameWasTaken is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:44 PM
  #96
Seanahue
Registered User
 
Seanahue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 2,800
vCash: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
So drop linkage. Drop the cap. Drop the floor. Stop forcing owners to lose money.
The irony in this statement is almost too good.

Seanahue is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:45 PM
  #97
Seanahue
Registered User
 
Seanahue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 2,800
vCash: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tra La La View Post
Umm the leagues first proposal included trading cap space,(softening the cap). The players rejected it.
I thought that was in the players first proposal.

Seanahue is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:45 PM
  #98
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Well, for one, the Oilers are now a money making franchise.
For two, the level of the luxury sharing can be shifted/changed each CBA.

The point is that even with 50-50, two years from now, with the growth pattern we've seen, you're going to have businesses losing money.


Nothing in the owners' proposal fixes that.

So drop linkage. Drop the cap. Drop the floor. Stop forcing owners to lose money.
And welcome back the Toronto Panthers, Toronto's farm NHL. I bet their fans will be thrilled to see premier prospects walk because the Leafs can afford a $100m payroll, while Florida can barely string together half that.

Bourne Endeavor is online now  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:45 PM
  #99
Turbofan
The Full 60 Minutes
 
Turbofan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,400
vCash: 844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
We do the later on a semi-regular basis, albeit less on the restaurants, and manage perfectly well on a low budget.
Indeed. I'm a marathon runner, confident I could run most NHL players into the ground, but my food budget is pretty modest. Keep it simple!

Turbofan is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:46 PM
  #100
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tra La La View Post
Umm the leagues first proposal included trading cap space,(softening the cap). The players rejected it.
That didn't soften the cap at all. It only allowed teams to retain cap space + the same percentage of salary in a trade. It's not like a poor team could trade a rich team it's cap space; the poor team would still have to pay the salary it retained.

opendoor 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 02:01 AM.

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.