if they have problems I hope we don't have to hear about it; get the thing done and lets see all the goodies that are attached- will we see two expansion teams? is Winnipeg now in the West (although a back to back in Tampa and Winnipeg in February would be good for the blood)....how many games? how long are players bound to teams (I like this because we don't see the Kessel stuff happen and I like familiarity)
If they can get this done and be playing by the end of the month they could probably fit in 60 or so games- keep games regional for this year and keep travel close to compensate for the more games in less calendar days....I'm optimistic don't **** with me
Well, I guess now Fehr and Daly are going to go back to their respective sides and bring to them what was discussed and will continue to talk via phone to "clarify" any issues they talked about yesterday and will meet again face to face after they've had feedback from their sides.
As for games: how does 64 games sound? 6 games versus each team within your divisions and 4 games versus the other 10 teams in your conference. No inter-conference games. NHLPA could give in to the league on that to save the owners some of the travelling expenses for this season.
Here is a list of actual NHL value changes from 2008-2012 {I nclude recent sales for the last 10 years too.** I dont have historical data to go back further then 2008 so sorry for that being the limit of how far I can go back. The reason for this list is to see if it is reasonable to expect values of NHL teams to go up under the old CBA and if values of teams can be factored into the owners thinking whether or not they are making enough money from their investments.
First i break out the top 8 teams in the Market. Basically these are the 8 teams in the huge hockey markets that will make money under any circumstance. They dont need a good CBA to make money. No one needs to pass a poor hat for any of these 8 teams.
toronto 448-521 {sold 2012 365}
rangers 411-507
montreal 334-445 {sold in 2010 for 575}
Detroit 303-336
philadelphia 275-290
boston 263-325
vancouver 236-300 {sold 2205 207}
chicago 205-306
next we have the smaller canadien markets. If the dollar is high these teams are basically bullet proof too BUT 2 of them did become community owned last decade because the dollar wasnt at par.
Then we have 9 more franchises in slightly smaller traditional markets where if the team wins then it does ok... but if it doesnt win it struggles.
dallas 273-230 {sold in 2011 265}
colorado 231-198
new jersey 222-181 {sold 2004 for 125}
minnesota 217-213 {sold in 2008 for 225}
los angeles 210-232
anaheim 202-184
pittsburgh 195-264
san jose 179-211 {sold 2004 147}
washington 160-225
and finally we have the 10 franchises that this current lockout is being fought for. The ones that provide around 240 union jobs for the players that will be in jeopordy unless the ownerships here can stop losing 5-10 mill or more every season
tampa 200-174 {sold 2010 for 93}
buffalo 169-173 {sold in 2011 210}
carolina 168-169
nashville 164-163 {sold in 2007 174}
florida 163-162 {sold in 2009 for 200}
st louis 162-157 {sold 2012 150}
atlanta/Winnipeg 158-164 {sold in 2011 for 170}
columbus 157-152
islanders 154-149
phoenix 127-134 {sold 2009 140}
so as we can see... this last CBA wasnt helping any of the bottom 11 teams get stronger in valuation. and the 8 middle teams mostly all lost alot of their value. Pittsburgh and LA did ok but they won cups. Teams cant count on winning a cup every year.
You can also see that 7 of these teams were sold very recently.
thing get complicated because theres arena ownership involved in some of these sales... theres huge subsidies by local taxpayer groups to most of these teams too. sometimes values of teams will go up due to one time benefits like a new arenas or some special event like winning a stanley cup.
overall though you can see that trying to tell owners of the bottom 10 teams to be 'happy' with their franchise value going up to offset their 10s or 100s of millions of dollars in loses over the last decade... just isnt going to cut it.
in general summary there are around 8 franchises that can look forward 5-10 years and know their franchise will be worth more then it is today. These same 8 franchises know they will make a profit too. These same 8 franchises will spend to the cap. When we are talking about a lockout it is not to protect any of these 8 franchises.
the canadian teams arent currently crying the blues. they got what they wanted from the last cba
the middle 9 teams have been getting their teeth kicked in for the most part under the last cba. Unless these 9 teams have just recently won a cup, their value is tanking. These are the main teams that desperately need the cba to be brought under control.
and then theres the bottom 10 teams that probably arent going to be helped alot whether their is a good cba or not. One can argue they are all too small and dont have enough traditional fans to ever be successful.
there arent many owners getting rich from owning hockey teams anyhow. and realistically if there was... wouldnt someone start a second league and get in on the action?
owning hockey teams isnt a way to get rich unless you are lucky enough to be in one of the top 8 markets or have recently won a stanly cup. it is however a great way to lose your shirt. the last group that tried to start a rival league all went bankrupt. the ihl went broke... the wha went broke. owners of the bottom 10 teams are all going broke.
so it is what it is... owning teams is a great way for billionares to stroke their ego. its not a great business for making alot of money for them though.
As first reported late Friday by TSN’s Darren Dreger, Daly made it known to Fehr during a substantive phone conversation Tuesday that the owners were willing to absorb the share of the “Make Whole” proposition.
On Oct. 16, the NHL proposed an immediate 50-50 split of hockey-related revenues with the players and a “make whole” proposition where all players would be reimbursed the 12.3 percent cut in salaries over the length of their contracts. The kicker was that money would ultimately be charged to the player share in future years.
The league on Tuesday told the union that the owners are now willing to absorb that burden. Of course, the devil’s in the details, and how that would work is key and you can bet this topic was a significant portion of yesterday’s meetings between Daly and Steve Fehr.
But this is huge concession because players have made very clear in the last little bit that they are willing to go to a 50-50 split as long as all their contracts mutually negotiated in good faith under the previous collective bargaining agreement are honored in full.
If that’s true, and there’s indeed no strings attached to this owner proposition, this would be a huge step toward a new CBA and then moving on to negotiating the other systematic changes the league wants to make that the players have had issues with (moving free agency to age 28 or eight years of service, five-year max contracts, year to year salary variability of 5 percent, dropping entry-level deals from three years of length to two, etc).
Quote:
Among other things, the owners have proposed to 1) artificially inflate the salary cap in Year 1 so teams don’t have to trade or release players; 2) trade player salary and cap charges in trades (this is something both teams and players have wanted); 3) eliminate re-entry waivers; 4) Increase revenue sharing with further increases as revenues grow, and the top grossing teams making the biggest contributions (revenue sharing is something Don Fehr is passionate about; wants it so the teams that really need assistance are assisted); 5) Introduction of appeal rights to a neutral third-party arbitrator in cases involving on- and- off-ice discipline (player-proposed wish).
Here is a list of actual NHL value changes from 2008-2012 {I nclude recent sales for the last 10 years too.** I dont have historical data to go back further then 2008 so sorry for that being the limit of how far I can go back. The reason for this list is to see if it is reasonable to expect values of NHL teams to go up under the old CBA and if values of teams can be factored into the owners thinking whether or not they are making enough money from their investments.
First i break out the top 8 teams in the Market. Basically these are the 8 teams in the huge hockey markets that will make money under any circumstance. They dont need a good CBA to make money. No one needs to pass a poor hat for any of these 8 teams.
toronto 448-521 {sold 2012 365}
rangers 411-507
montreal 334-445 {sold in 2010 for 575}
Detroit 303-336
philadelphia 275-290
boston 263-325
vancouver 236-300 {sold 2205 207}
chicago 205-306
next we have the smaller canadien markets. If the dollar is high these teams are basically bullet proof too BUT 2 of them did become community owned last decade because the dollar wasnt at par.
Then we have 9 more franchises in slightly smaller traditional markets where if the team wins then it does ok... but if it doesnt win it struggles.
dallas 273-230 {sold in 2011 265}
colorado 231-198
new jersey 222-181 {sold 2004 for 125}
minnesota 217-213 {sold in 2008 for 225}
los angeles 210-232
anaheim 202-184
pittsburgh 195-264
san jose 179-211 {sold 2004 147}
washington 160-225
and finally we have the 10 franchises that this current lockout is being fought for. The ones that provide around 240 union jobs for the players that will be in jeopordy unless the ownerships here can stop losing 5-10 mill or more every season
tampa 200-174 {sold 2010 for 93}
buffalo 169-173 {sold in 2011 210}
carolina 168-169
nashville 164-163 {sold in 2007 174}
florida 163-162 {sold in 2009 for 200}
st louis 162-157 {sold 2012 150}
atlanta/Winnipeg 158-164 {sold in 2011 for 170}
columbus 157-152
islanders 154-149
phoenix 127-134 {sold 2009 140}
so as we can see... this last CBA wasnt helping any of the bottom 11 teams get stronger in valuation. and the 8 middle teams mostly all lost alot of their value. Pittsburgh and LA did ok but they won cups. Teams cant count on winning a cup every year.
You can also see that 7 of these teams were sold very recently.
thing get complicated because theres arena ownership involved in some of these sales... theres huge subsidies by local taxpayer groups to most of these teams too. sometimes values of teams will go up due to one time benefits like a new arenas or some special event like winning a stanley cup.
overall though you can see that trying to tell owners of the bottom 10 teams to be 'happy' with their franchise value going up to offset their 10s or 100s of millions of dollars in loses over the last decade... just isnt going to cut it.
in general summary there are around 8 franchises that can look forward 5-10 years and know their franchise will be worth more then it is today. These same 8 franchises know they will make a profit too. These same 8 franchises will spend to the cap. When we are talking about a lockout it is not to protect any of these 8 franchises.
the canadian teams arent currently crying the blues. they got what they wanted from the last cba
the middle 9 teams have been getting their teeth kicked in for the most part under the last cba. Unless these 9 teams have just recently won a cup, their value is tanking. These are the main teams that desperately need the cba to be brought under control.
and then theres the bottom 10 teams that probably arent going to be helped alot whether their is a good cba or not. One can argue they are all too small and dont have enough traditional fans to ever be successful.
there arent many owners getting rich from owning hockey teams anyhow. and realistically if there was... wouldnt someone start a second league and get in on the action?
owning hockey teams isnt a way to get rich unless you are lucky enough to be in one of the top 8 markets or have recently won a stanly cup. it is however a great way to lose your shirt. the last group that tried to start a rival league all went bankrupt. the ihl went broke... the wha went broke. owners of the bottom 10 teams are all going broke.
so it is what it is... owning teams is a great way for billionares to stroke their ego. its not a great business for making alot of money for them though.
Here are the numbers for 2006 when the last CBA began
going back further and further we always have more and more factors that go into this. if we do an indepth look at any one particular situation, we might find a new tv deal or a new merchandising deal took place... or some huge subsidy from the goverment. Of course, the situation for the NHL immediately before this past cba was horrific. the new cba didnt fix the problem enough but it fixed it some. so its not a surprise that values of teams were at a low right at the start of this new cba and a jump in value of some teams can be attributed to this cba.
but then as my list shows... the value rise took place immediately and then stopped.
whatever the reason that the rise happens... it only gets realized if there is an actual sale. otherwise we can say the numbers on paper are whatever they are. These teams are hard to figure out because they are tied to arenas and to media and consessions and naming rights and parking and all sort of other things. Some of this stuff should be included because... that's the way it is. It will continue to be that way. Some other stuff is one time only benefits or costs... is not going to continue into the future...
overall though i will stand my my assessment of valuation for bottom feeder teams if the cba were to continue at a 57% clip without some siginificant changes in the revenue sharing between owners or something else of that sort. the bottom teams are all having massive annual loses and they are getting worst. all the bottom team owners are claiming loses that are astronomical. they are all selling their teams as fast as they can and/or scrambling for investors. and now, they are supporting a lockout. these are all signs that things are not good.
3:30 pm conference call among the NHLPA ended with a "there's enough there to negotiate from...get a deal done"
and thus the face to face meeting on Tuesday. Owners will discuss among themselves today.
As I hinted at yesterday, 64 games schedule, no inter- conference games. 6 games with teams in your division, 4 games versus other 10 teams in your conference.
I'm willing to wager its done by the end of the week.
3:30 pm conference call among the NHLPA ended with a "there's enough there to negotiate from...get a deal done"
and thus the face to face meeting on Tuesday. Owners will discuss among themselves today.
As I hinted at yesterday, 64 games schedule, no inter- conference games. 6 games with teams in your division, 4 games versus other 10 teams in your conference.
I'm willing to wager its done by the end of the week.
3:30 pm conference call among the NHLPA ended with a "there's enough there to negotiate from...get a deal done"
and thus the face to face meeting on Tuesday. Owners will discuss among themselves today.
As I hinted at yesterday, 64 games schedule, no inter- conference games. 6 games with teams in your division, 4 games versus other 10 teams in your conference.
I'm willing to wager its done by the end of the week.
Sixty four games has the credibility of a full season, so I see no need for asterisks. Actually, I believe 82 games is too many, anyway, but tell that to the owners!.
3:30 pm conference call among the NHLPA ended with a "there's enough there to negotiate from...get a deal done"
and thus the face to face meeting on Tuesday. Owners will discuss among themselves today.
As I hinted at yesterday, 64 games schedule, no inter- conference games. 6 games with teams in your division, 4 games versus other 10 teams in your conference.
I'm willing to wager its done by the end of the week.
3:30 pm conference call among the NHLPA ended with a "there's enough there to negotiate from...get a deal done"
and thus the face to face meeting on Tuesday. Owners will discuss among themselves today.
As I hinted at yesterday, 64 games schedule, no inter- conference games. 6 games with teams in your division, 4 games versus other 10 teams in your conference.
I'm willing to wager its done by the end of the week.
If you are right sir, and precisely this happens.. I think we should all pitch in money to get a statue in your likeness.
3:30 pm conference call among the NHLPA ended with a "there's enough there to negotiate from...get a deal done"
and thus the face to face meeting on Tuesday. Owners will discuss among themselves today.
As I hinted at yesterday, 64 games schedule, no inter- conference games. 6 games with teams in your division, 4 games versus other 10 teams in your conference.
I'm willing to wager its done by the end of the week.
Thanks for the update Dom.
Please get a deal done soon, I need my Bruins back.
3:30 pm conference call among the NHLPA ended with a "there's enough there to negotiate from...get a deal done"
and thus the face to face meeting on Tuesday. Owners will discuss among themselves today.
As I hinted at yesterday, 64 games schedule, no inter- conference games. 6 games with teams in your division, 4 games versus other 10 teams in your conference.
I'm willing to wager its done by the end of the week.
I'm so disgusted by this lockout that I am not even really excited about them coming back.
I get what you're saying, and I'd love to be able to say that too, but I know damn well that I'll be standing straight at attention if the NHL is back on
EVERYBODY PANIC
