HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Lockout discussion thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-26-2012, 07:36 PM
  #951
overlords
Hfboards
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Trolling Brian Wilde
Posts: 26,411
vCash: 500
Cool it in here, guys.

overlords is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 07:46 PM
  #952
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
This is the epitome of why there is so much hatred towards profs from undergrads.
I was well-liked and appreciated actually. Good ratings, good attendance, but thank you for your concern.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 08:13 PM
  #953
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by idk View Post
The situation's a bit more complex than that. The cost certainty values established by the last CBA have done wonders for league revenues but not every team has seen the same kind of increases. Right now hockey profits come in at somewhere about 127 million. However if you remove the big three teams (Toronto, Montreal and the Rangers) league revenues drop to -44 million (yes, 44 million in the hole). Expand the big three to the big five (add Vancouver and Edmonton) and that number drops to a loss of 86 million. Only eight teams make more than 5 million a season (the above, plus Detroit, Chicago and Colorado) and only twelve actually turn a profit (those eight plus the Flyers, Ottawa, Calgary and Boston).

That's less than half the teams turning a profit. Is some of the reason for it owners who spend foolishly? Of course. The Wild, who have the second highest payroll in the league finished last season about six million in the red. But of the five teams with the lowest revenue in the league (the Coyotes, Columbus, Tampa Bay, Anaheim and the Islanders) two are below the salary floor (Phoenix and the Islanders) and two are
very close (Anaheim (within two million) and Columbus (within four million)).

The problem is that some teams are very rich and some teams are not. Montreal, Toronto and the Rangers account for 130% of the league's total revenue. And that skews the numbers very badly. This is a problem, but there are three solutions:
  • Reduce the cap and floor by seven percent. This will probably not save Phoenix from being a "have not" team, but it would bring Columbus and Anaheim very close.
  • Increase cost sharing. Not palatable to the owners of the profitable teams. Molson bought the Canadiens for 500 million dollars and Bell probably paid a similar amount for the Leafs (although it's harder to figure out, as MLSE owns several sports investments). True North bought the Thrashers/Jets $170 million. Why should Geoff and Bell sacrifice their ROI to finance the ROI for True North, who paid much less to get in the game?
  • Contract. Kill off the teams that are weak.

Of these three options the league wants the first, the players want the second and no one wants the third. Which one is more fair to us? Probably the compromise that gets us back to hockey soonest. But it's not as simple as "everything was fixed last time, why are we here again".
Brilliant post!

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 08:20 PM
  #954
Drydenwasthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I was well-liked and appreciated actually. Good ratings, good attendance, but thank you for your concern.
I don't doubt it. We had a drunk prof and loved going to his classes because everybody received great grades and we loved watching him trip over his words.

If you think good teaching involves grading papers with half a brain while drinking and watching TV, you are sorely mistaken. That is the type of teacher we want out of our profession, actually, because they give the rest of us a bad name. Thanks for clarifying your position, though...

Drydenwasthebest is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 08:32 PM
  #955
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,670
vCash: 500
According to a Forbes article, the Molson family had to borrow nearly 300 M from Desjardins to buy the Canadiens in 2009 and that the Habs got $53 million on $163 million of revenue in its last full season in 2008.

I wonder what's the interest payment on that 300M loan...Molsons is also taking a huge one for the team of owners here.

CN_paladin is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 08:41 PM
  #956
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by waffledave View Post
Next stoppage will result in Bettman locking them out again. Because no matter how much the owners cry, no matter what systems they put into place, the owners will find a way to overspend. They always find a way.
Then they can blame it on the players and the ignorant will be in here saying "Geez greedy lazy players! 40-60 split is perfectly fine! Let them get a real job like welding or drywalling!"

Players obviously didn't do anything exceptional to make the greatest league in the world, nothing your average teacher couldn't do

OneSharpMarble is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 09:59 PM
  #957
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drydenwasthebest View Post
We had a drunk prof and loved going to his classes because everybody received great grades and we loved watching him trip over his words.
You say you work as hard as Sidney Crosby, but if Crosby showed up at the gym and his trainer told him to he was doing everything well when he wasn't, or his trainer was drunk, Crosby would fire his trainer.


Last edited by DAChampion: 10-26-2012 at 10:38 PM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 10:01 PM
  #958
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CN_paladin View Post
According to a Forbes article, the Molson family had to borrow nearly 300 M from Desjardins to buy the Canadiens in 2009 and that the Habs got $53 million on $163 million of revenue in its last full season in 2008.

I wonder what's the interest payment on that 300M loan...Molsons is also taking a huge one for the team of owners here.
I would guess that the Habs profit barely covers his interest payments and taxes, and that his profits come from the increased value of the team and the Bell Center. Don't forget he also bought the Bell Center with the Habs. That's a huge moneymaker right there in normal times.

Overall though, you're right, Geoff Molson is screwed by the lockout. Aside from the things you mention, the other factor is that if there is no season he is going to be denied a top-5 draft pick he would get from a season, and thus lose out on tens of millions of dollars in playoff revenue in years to come.


Last edited by DAChampion: 10-26-2012 at 10:09 PM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 10:22 PM
  #959
Agnostic
11 Stanley Cups
 
Agnostic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CN_paladin View Post
According to a Forbes article, the Molson family had to borrow nearly 300 M from Desjardins to buy the Canadiens in 2009 and that the Habs got $53 million on $163 million of revenue in its last full season in 2008.

I wonder what's the interest payment on that 300M loan...Molsons is also taking a huge one for the team of owners here.
The Habs ownership situation is complicated, but it's been written by Forbes that the Molson family stake in the Habs at purchase was $140M. If they borrowed $300M then obviously part of the money was for outside ventures.

Agnostic is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 10:28 PM
  #960
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
The Habs ownership situation is complicated, but it's been written by Forbes that the Molson family stake in the Habs at purchase was $140M. If they borrowed $300M then obviously part of the money was for outside ventures.
The total cost of Habs + Bell Center was over 500 million.

140 million is approximately what George Gillette paid in 2002.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 11:36 PM
  #961
Agnostic
11 Stanley Cups
 
Agnostic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
The total cost of Habs + Bell Center was over 500 million.

140 million is approximately what George Gillette paid in 2002.
The Molson family is only part of a 7 entity group that owns the Habs. the total price was $575M, of which the Molson Family only owns $140M.

I laugh when people call Geoff Molson "THE OWNER" , he is part of a family which owns a part of the Habs.

Agnostic is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 11:45 PM
  #962
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
The Molson family is only part of a 7 entity group that owns the Habs. the total price was $575M, of which the Molson Family only owns $140M.

I laugh when people call Geoff Molson "THE OWNER" , he is part of a family which owns a part of the Habs.
You can laugh at people, but you have incorrect information. The Molson family contributed a lot more than 140 million. They contributed that 140 million, as well as the the 300 million dollar loan.

************

This article has the details
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/12...hin-ice_2.html

Molson Family, 140 million in assets, 300 million in loans
BCE, 47 million
Thompson family, 19 million, presumably they had to sell when buying the Winnipeg Jets
Michael Andlauer, 28 million
Montreal labor group, 47 million
Total: 581 million for the Habs and the Bell Center.

That gives the Molson family a 73% stake, which makes them majority owners, and Geoff Molson is their representative. If you want to be pedantic and laugh at people who call him the owner, fine, but get your facts straight.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 01:17 AM
  #963
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,670
vCash: 500
Yeah Molsons borrowed that 300 M on their own to beat out other offers. Unless they default on that loan then their family is the majority owner of the Habs and the Bell center.

CN_paladin is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 02:52 AM
  #964
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I would guess that the Habs profit barely covers his interest payments and taxes, and that his profits come from the increased value of the team and the Bell Center. Don't forget he also bought the Bell Center with the Habs. That's a huge moneymaker right there in normal times.

Overall though, you're right, Geoff Molson is screwed by the lockout. Aside from the things you mention, the other factor is that if there is no season he is going to be denied a top-5 draft pick he would get from a season, and thus lose out on tens of millions of dollars in playoff revenue in years to come.
Bold above:

Molson had better lobby hard for a repeat of last years draft positions then. I would if I was him.

There is no reason to revert to a general draft with multiple playoff missing teams the winners. It's stupid.

But to add to the insult of missing a season when the Habs can afford to play and pay, The NHL will **** this up too and Habs will get screwed.

bsl is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 04:47 AM
  #965
Estimated_Prophet
Registered User
 
Estimated_Prophet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by skipp18 View Post
Will all due respect, this is nonsense. The last lockout all we heard from the owners was how "cost certainty" was going to fix everything.
They needed "cost certainty" in order to survive.

How is it possible that they got everything they wanted last time that was supposed to fix everything, revenue grew to an all time high at a record pace and still they are crying poor. Once again the owners are asking the players to save the owners from themselves.
With all due respect......do you really believe everything that you hear and read that is put out there for public consumption. This was clearly a two phase bargaining strategy that the owners used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by idk View Post
The situation's a bit more complex than that. The cost certainty values established by the last CBA have done wonders for league revenues but not every team has seen the same kind of increases. Right now hockey profits come in at somewhere about 127 million. However if you remove the big three teams (Toronto, Montreal and the Rangers) league revenues drop to -44 million (yes, 44 million in the hole). Expand the big three to the big five (add Vancouver and Edmonton) and that number drops to a loss of 86 million. Only eight teams make more than 5 million a season (the above, plus Detroit, Chicago and Colorado) and only twelve actually turn a profit (those eight plus the Flyers, Ottawa, Calgary and Boston).

That's less than half the teams turning a profit. Is some of the reason for it owners who spend foolishly? Of course. The Wild, who have the second highest payroll in the league finished last season about six million in the red. But of the five teams with the lowest revenue in the league (the Coyotes, Columbus, Tampa Bay, Anaheim and the Islanders) two are below the salary floor (Phoenix and the Islanders) and two are
very close (Anaheim (within two million) and Columbus (within four million)).

The problem is that some teams are very rich and some teams are not. Montreal, Toronto and the Rangers account for 130% of the league's total revenue. And that skews the numbers very badly. This is a problem, but there are three solutions:
  • Reduce the cap and floor by seven percent. This will probably not save Phoenix from being a "have not" team, but it would bring Columbus and Anaheim very close.
  • Increase cost sharing. Not palatable to the owners of the profitable teams. Molson bought the Canadiens for 500 million dollars and Bell probably paid a similar amount for the Leafs (although it's harder to figure out, as MLSE owns several sports investments). True North bought the Thrashers/Jets $170 million. Why should Geoff and Bell sacrifice their ROI to finance the ROI for True North, who paid much less to get in the game?
  • Contract. Kill off the teams that are weak.

Of these three options the league wants the first, the players want the second and no one wants the third. Which one is more fair to us? Probably the compromise that gets us back to hockey soonest. But it's not as simple as "everything was fixed last time, why are we here again".
Best post in this thread......hands down.

Estimated_Prophet is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 04:58 AM
  #966
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estimated_Prophet View Post
With all due respect......do you really believe everything that you hear and read that is put out there for public consumption. This was clearly a two phase bargaining strategy that the owners used.
Where is the evidence for a two-phase strategy?

The most plausible outcome is that this dance gets repeated every six or seven years as this process has an intrinsic capacity for self-perpetuating economic failure. Here are the steps:

1) Lockout happens.
2) Owners get significant concessions from players, say 10 million dollars per team.
3) League grows. Owners get another 30 million per team from more ticket sales and more TV revenue, of which 15 million goes to the players, but somehow none of the growth is in Phoenix. Most of the growth is in big markets, say New York and Los Angeles. They do very well.
4) Owners increase spending on marketing, scouting, drafting, development, management, to be more competitive. That's expensive. Phoenix, New Jersey, Anaheim, and Tampa Bay fall behind.
5) League expands into El Paso, Texas and San Juan, Puerto Rico. These new teams lose money. After Jay Feaster's reign runs its course, the Calgary Flames relocate to Mississippi.
6) 27 of 32 teams are now losing money.
7) Another lockout in 2018.


Last edited by DAChampion: 10-27-2012 at 05:14 AM.
DAChampion is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 05:37 AM
  #967
yianik
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,897
vCash: 500
Both sides actually moved from their 57% positions, the players from the 57% they now get and the owners the 57% they wanted to get, this was good. Unfortunately we now seem to have hit a stalemate. The owners want the 50 % now, right now. The players want the 50% to happen due to increasing revenues and will not, not agree to a salary rollback. Remember unions are all about keeping the pay as high as they can, even if it means job losses. This is probably because way back when people worked like dogs and still didnt make enough to live reasonably. The NHL players can live more than reasonably but the union philosophy still applies, thats why the rollback last strike was an amazing concession. Anyway, this time round it seems the NHLPA will not agree to any cut back.
Too bad all around, a resolution seems to be had, NHL agrees to a gradual but quick move to 50%, say by players taking a 4%-6% rollback right now and of course the NHLPA agrees to that rollback. I dont think the NHLPA will do it, even though it means these boys are going to lose a huge part of their paycheque over a year, as opposed to a few % points. Financially ( yeah I know they are playing in europe ), the players are looking at taking a much bigger hit by staying out, but I guess Fehr has them singing ..solidarity forever... . My guess is the first likely to blink will be the owners because for them its about the money while I think the players are being financially reckless, but principled. You know, if you fear death, dont get into a fight with someone who doesnt.

yianik is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 05:43 AM
  #968
Estimated_Prophet
Registered User
 
Estimated_Prophet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Where is the evidence for a two-phase strategy?

The most plausible outcome is that this dance gets repeated every six or seven years as this process has an intrinsic capacity for self-perpetuating economic failure. Here are the steps:

1) Lockout happens.
2) Owners get significant concessions from players, say 10 million dollars per team.
3) League grows. Owners get another 30 million per team from more ticket sales and more TV revenue, of which 15 million goes to the players, but somehow none of the growth is in Phoenix. Most of the growth is in big markets, say New York and Los Angeles. They do very well.
4) Owners increase spending on marketing, scouting, drafting, development, management, to be more competitive. That's expensive. Phoenix, New Jersey, Anaheim, and Tampa Bay fall behind.
5) League expands into El Paso, Texas and San Juan, Puerto Rico. These new teams lose money. After Jay Feaster's reign runs its course, the Calgary Flames relocate to Mississippi.
6) 27 of 32 teams are now losing money.
7) Another lockout in 2018.
It would obviously be impossible to provide evidence as the owners would never admit to it. The first lockout's sole purpose was to implement a cap and create a form of cost certainty. The second lockout was to adjust the numbers that exist within the pre-established cap system.

The owners knew that they would never reach and agreement if they tried to accomplish all of this in one fell swoop. It was an inevitability that the owners were well aware of and completely planned for. I suppose it would be subjective analysis to suggest that both lockouts were pre-planned as a two phase bargaining tactic, however, common sense would point to this as each agenda is dependant on the other to create a viable business model for the NHL.

Estimated_Prophet is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 05:51 AM
  #969
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estimated_Prophet View Post
It would obviously be impossible to provide evidence as the owners would never admit to it. The first lockout's sole purpose was to implement a cap and create a form of cost certainty. The second lockout was to adjust the numbers that exist within the pre-established cap system.

The owners knew that they would never reach and agreement if they tried to accomplish all of this in one fell swoop. It was an inevitability that the owners were well aware of and completely planned for. I suppose it would be subjective analysis to suggest that both lockouts were pre-planned as a two phase bargaining tactic, however, common sense would point to this as each agenda is dependant on the other to create a viable business model for the NHL.
There's no common sense or subjective analysis there, you're just retroactively creating a conspiracy theory.

There's nothing obviously inevitable about the current lockout. It happened due to the rise of the Canadian dollar (not predictable), the failure of teams like Phoenix which is inevitable but was not expected, and the fact owners shifted their increased income into management, scouting, drafting, etc; which is inevitable for any revenue split but I doubt the owners saw that coming. Items #2 and #3 are self-perpetuating.

I'll note that a 30 team NHL is not viable with a 50/50 split, it's probably not even viable with a 60/40 split.

DAChampion 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 10:20 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.