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.

Spector: Don't get greedy, Gary (IOW if you get 50-50, give on contract details)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-12-2012, 10:19 PM
  #26
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Of course you're right on both counts, but the Parise/Suter package was the only UFA deal of the summer that was clearly at a higher level. Who's the next one, Olli Jokinen?

Weber was in play too, albeit not quite the UFA but he got an UFA price.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:20 PM
  #27
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
PensFanSince1989's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,722
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
You know why it's one my favorite parts? Because it makes business sense that business control their OWN spending instead of being forced by a central planning committee to throw it away.
You know my favorite part? When we ignore that the NHL had a system which allowed each individual business (they aren't really individual businesses btw) to decide how much to spend. That didn't work out so well, and saw players getting upwards of 74% of the revenue.

PensFanSince1989 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:24 PM
  #28
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
PensFanSince1989's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,722
vCash: 500
Though I agree that the NhL should probably give in on contracting eighths issues other than contract length and/or variance. And they probably will once the NHLPA gives up on the delinkage notion.

PensFanSince1989 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:24 PM
  #29
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PensFanSince1989 View Post
You know my favorite part? When we ignore that the NHL had a system which allowed each individual business (they aren't really individual businesses btw) to decide how much to spend. That didn't work out so well, and saw players getting upwards of 74% of the revenue.
Yes, but the Pens were spending $22 MM and NYR and Toronto were spending 3x that much on 34 yr old has-beens.

Nevertheless, somehow the big teams have grown revenues massively under this system, 3 original six teams won the Cup (and almost 4 Cups in total....), while more and more elite players have gravitated to the bigger markets. This time however, it's happened at a younger age.


Gary's systems over the years have created so many loopholes, the league's economic systems look like Alpine Lace cheese.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:24 PM
  #30
Kirk Muller
Registered User
 
Kirk Muller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brrr -18, Gomez Cold
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
That's not true either. It's the NHL that put Revenue Sharing into the CBA. Goodenow told them back then that how much revenue they choose to share can be left out of CBA.

You know why I think the league did it? It was the only way Bettman could get the big boys to actually play along and keep playing along. It's not a player problem.
its obvious important enough for the players now isnt it? Doesnt matter what the past is. The players have their noses in it, dont they.

who cares what Goodenow thinks, all you pro NHLPA people say how he screwed over the players last time so i guess his opinion should mean little to you guys.

Kirk Muller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:26 PM
  #31
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
As usual, a reasonable and defensible position (the owners should relent on contract issues since they're getting their 50/50) is taken a bridge too far by an agent whose ONLY interest is in seeing players make maximum coin. Screw the league's long-term vision for market growth, right? Let's put the strategic planning in the hands of player-side interests, who have managed so many successful corporate ventures in other areas.

I'm sure Bettman is very interested in what Mark Spector has to say about internal budgeting priorities.
What is the leagues ROI on that vision?

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:26 PM
  #32
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
PensFanSince1989's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,722
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Yes, but the Pens were spending $22 MM and NYR and Toronto were spending 3x that much on 34 yr old has-beens.

Nevertheless, somehow the big teams have grown revenues massively under this system, 3 original six teams won the Cup (and almost 4 Cups in total....), while more and more elite players have gravitated to the bigger markets. This time however, it's happened at a younger age.


Gary's systems over the years have created so many loopholes, the league's economic systems look like Alpine Lace cheese.
And the Penguins were going bankrupt despite only paying $22 million. They may not be your best example.

PensFanSince1989 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:27 PM
  #33
hbk
Registered User
 
hbk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
Yes but his use of the word can't rather than need could suggest that his argument is that the league doesn't have to go to such lengths to fool proof something that can't be fool proof because people will come along and find some new and creative way of getting around it. If he had said there's no need, then I would say that he's suggesting that there aren't loopholes to be fixed. As an agent, I'm sure he probably wants those loopholes kept open because it's better for his clients and in turn better for himself. However, I'm just trying to give due to what the agent said rather than assume the worst and twist it into something that may not be an accurate picture of what he intended to say.

Not closing the loophole would be insane. We already know the end result if the league fails to address the current loopholes.

hbk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:28 PM
  #34
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Weber was in play too, albeit not quite the UFA but he got an UFA price.
See my edit

Quote:
No, you didn't. You took a basic tenet of business management and tried to obfuscate with layers of irrelevant emotion-based 'arguments'. "We don't want our team to be a feeder to the big clubs, so let's screw up the league's economics some more."
The idea that 'you have to spend money to make money' is not emotion-based... in fact, it's kind of a basic tenet of business management unto itself.

Likewise, 'we don't want our team to be a feeder for the rest of the league' isn't emotion-based either. Look at revenues for struggling organizations that have failed to retain their homegrown talent and struggle to attract talent from the outside. It's not a pretty place to be, business-wise, when you're basically depending on luck of the draw to grab young stars and hope they can give you a few years of good service before bolting. Fans won't put up with that for long, networks have no interest in promoting the product and next thing you know, you've got a generational revenue problem.

Gotta fix it somewhere. Is the CBA not the logical place to address that type of global, league-wide issue?

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:29 PM
  #35
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
its obvious important enough for the players now isnt it? Doesnt matter what the past is. The players have their noses in it, dont they.

who cares what Goodenow thinks, all you pro NHLPA people say how he screwed over the players last time so i guess his opinion should mean little to you guys.
They have their noses in it in order to Share the Sacrifice.

In return for actually giving up money and their share, which will benefit the owners by billions of dollars over the life of the CBA, they're saying that it's only fair that the league also helps fix the known problems. In fact, the PA has accepted that there are teams that are in bad shape and that they will meet the league part way on addressing those problems specifically.


If you actually are supportive of the current league size and locations, you should applaud that someone is pushing the big boys to give a bit back too. They're going to get more out of this than anyone else.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:30 PM
  #36
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PensFanSince1989 View Post
And the Penguins were going bankrupt despite only paying $22 million. They may not be your best example.

The bankruptcy wasn't due to the CBA. Furthermore, their resurgence wasn't due to a capped system but the luck of the doubled lottery immediately upon the return. Getting two generational talents would probably even save the Coyotes.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:34 PM
  #37
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
What is the leagues ROI on that vision?
Since when, 1991? Quite a lot.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:36 PM
  #38
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
See my edit

The idea that 'you have to spend money to make money' is not emotion-based... in fact, it's kind of a basic tenet of business management unto itself.
Businesses that spend beyond their means don't stay in business. The league has never fully addressed the revenue disparity issue. They put all their weight behind 'cost certainty' when the issue was never cost, but how the money in the league was spread out.


Quote:
Likewise, 'we don't want our team to be a feeder for the rest of the league' isn't emotion-based either. Look at revenues for struggling organizations that have failed to retain their homegrown talent and struggle to attract talent from the outside. It's not a pretty place to be, business-wise, when you're basically depending on luck of the draw to grab young stars and hope they can give you a few years of good service before bolting. Fans won't put up with that for long, networks have no interest in promoting the product and next thing you know, you've got a generational revenue problem.

It's still an emotion-based response. Furthermore, it takes the focus off solutions geared at the inequities--- which may not be very easy to find, asking for you to support a system that isn't really going to fix that problem anyway.

It's fear-driven. It also wants you to focus on the fear itself and not at the root cause of the scenario you claim to fear.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:37 PM
  #39
Kirk Muller
Registered User
 
Kirk Muller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brrr -18, Gomez Cold
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
They have their noses in it in order to Share the Sacrifice.

In return for actually giving up money and their share, which will benefit the owners by billions of dollars over the life of the CBA, they're saying that it's only fair that the league also helps fix the known problems. In fact, the PA has accepted that there are teams that are in bad shape and that they will meet the league part way on addressing those problems specifically.


If you actually are supportive of the current league size and locations, you should applaud that someone is pushing the big boys to give a bit back too. They're going to get more out of this than anyone else.
again its no different. Its not really their place. Its not up to them how money should be split around the league, its not theirs. Thats the point. When the author talks about the league wanting to dictate things, the players are just as guilty of it. Both sides are. Admit it but everything is ra ra NHLPA

Kirk Muller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:39 PM
  #40
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Since when, 1991? Quite a lot.

What? That a certain group of teams can charge an average of $25-35 per ticket, which comes out to half of the cap floor if they actually sell out at that level?

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:43 PM
  #41
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
again its no different. Its not really their place. Its not up to them how money should be split around the league, its not theirs. Thats the point. When the author talks about the league wanting to dictate things, the players are just as guilty of it. Both sides are. Admit it but everything is ra ra NHLPA

Just between us here, Kirk, I don't like revenue sharing because I don't like throwing good money after bad for years and years.

If you could tell me that supporting a team for 10 years (or a net transfer of $150 MM per team) in RS will yield a future contract of $5 billion in TV revenues, would I be swayed? Does it depend on whether I plan to own my team that long? Do I consider that 'we' [NHL] received $80 MM in expansion fees, divided by 20-26 teams?

You see, for the money that goes into the black hole, I want to know what's in it for me. In the meantime, the guy who bought the weaker team for $80 MM is desperately trying to find a buyer so he can stop subsidizing it with $20-30 MM of his own money. Money he will never get back, on top of the expansion fee or purchase price.

Edit: So I'm not nearly as pro-PA as you might think. I'm anti-Bettman, Jacobs et al., for consistently trying to ignore the fact that there is no real ROI of any meaning, and that instead they just want to bully the dollars out of the PA to cover for their horrific business decisions.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:50 PM
  #42
Ducks DVM
Moderator
There is no grunion
 
Ducks DVM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Long Beach, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,504
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Here we go again.

Dallas has no choice with a cap range system. Whether that money goes towards a Weber or some also-ran, or whatever liner..... they will have to spend between IN THE RANGE.

Are you actually suggesting that that wasn't happening during the most recent CBA? Brad Richards anyone?

Name one top free agent Dallas or any team not in the NE US/Canada quadrant, plus the traditional markets was able to attract.

One. Name.
Teemu. Selanne.

Repeatedly.

Ducks DVM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 11:04 PM
  #43
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Country:
Posts: 29,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducks DVM View Post
Teemu. Selanne.

Repeatedly.

Hi, Duck DVM. I always like to see your posts here, btw.

Well.... okay. We found one player.

That said, I will point out that Teemu was only going to sign with the Ducks or not sign at all. This example is like saying Lidstrom signed with the Wings because they offered the highest dollar amount.


[Edit: That's only because Winnipeg hadn't gotten a team in time. ]

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 11:09 PM
  #44
Ducks DVM
Moderator
There is no grunion
 
Ducks DVM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Long Beach, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,504
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Hi, Duck DVM. I always like to see your posts here, btw.

Well.... okay. We found one player.

That said, I will point out that Teemu was only going to sign with the Ducks or not sign at all. This example is like saying Lidstrom signed with the Wings because they offered the highest dollar amount.


[Edit: That's only because Winnipeg hadn't gotten a team in time. ]
Evil. Granted, that's a pretty low hanging fruit I plucked because he loves Anaheim, but you were the one who set the parameters

Ducks DVM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 11:19 PM
  #45
WingedWheel1987
Ken Holland's office
 
WingedWheel1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GPP Michigan
Posts: 8,222
vCash: 500
I am surprised the owners aren't caving on this. I really thought this would be something they were always willing to give up if they got the 50/50 split.

WingedWheel1987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 11:21 PM
  #46
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 29,371
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by WingedWheel1987 View Post
I am surprised the owners aren't caving on this. I really thought this would be something they were always willing to give up if they got the 50/50 split.
That might still happen. As long as it's the owners version of 50/50 and not the players.

Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 11:36 PM
  #47
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Businesses that spend beyond their means don't stay in business.
Back up a step. I'm just saying that you're portraying "teams need to spend to be competitive" as an emotional argument, which it isn't.

Quote:
The league has never fully addressed the revenue disparity issue. They put all their weight behind 'cost certainty' when the issue was never cost, but how the money in the league was spread out.
I'm with you on this. The PA was on the right track back when they opened discussions with an offer that would reform the RS system.

My suspicion, unsourced and unverified, is that Bettman would have a very hard time wrangling the owners into a new RS system, and that he didn't want Fehr to have any influence over that process. At the time, the PA's offer was perceived as an attempt to split the owners, which says something about how delicately Bettman has to manage this issue.

I am all 100% in favor of tackling this issue, but realistically Bettman is not going to be interested in doing it as a project with his buddy Don.

Quote:
It's still an emotion-based response.
Even though I just explained why it's a bottom-line business issue, it's an emotion-based response. Ok.

Please give me an unemotional, rational reason why it makes business sense to fail at retaining and attracting talent to your organization.

Quote:
What? That a certain group of teams can charge an average of $25-35 per ticket, which comes out to half of the cap floor if they actually sell out at that level?
I assume you're intentionally not finding the point here.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 02:06 AM
  #48
TheMoreYouKnow
Registered User
 
TheMoreYouKnow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Eire
Posts: 8,707
vCash: 500
It can be a rational decision to spend more than your income, in fact it is almost inevitable especially in the establishing phase of your business but there is also the reality that in ordinary business it is an extremely risky process (one which hits many small businesses pretty severely, a disturbingly large % of restaurant owners never recoups their initial investment).

Meanwhile in the NHL and other pro sports we have business owners whose main pre-occupation is to skew the economics of the whole industry in such a way as to essentially remove entrepreneurial risk entirely. The NHL stands out as particularly craven because its economics are simply more dysfunctional than those of the other leagues. But you see this general push in arena financing and you see it in CBAs.

But then pro sports are a unique oddity in the world of business, not really comparable to any regular industry (not even entertainment, an industry it technically could be considered part of) or other franchise systems (McDonald's franchises have an entirely different position and outlook toward each other and HQ than sports franchises).

In a pure business sense the position of the league makes perfect sense within the odd sphere that is pro sport economics, but at the same time the more the economics are 'rigged' and collectively arranged in favor of a more stable and safer businss environment the further you move away from the ethos of sport itself. In fact, one might argue *why* play games when the best way of guaranteeing interest and financial reward for all participants would be fixed storylines making sure that success and failure are distributed equally or rather tailored toward each team's needs at a given time. Sure, the fans wouldn't have it, one might say but then we already accept various and ever-increasing measures to "fix" the playing field toward that end.

Personally, I just think it stinks. It goes against the principle that draws me to sport more than anything: competition. What's the point of winning a championship if you win it with full awareness that the league went through a series of rule changes and adjustments to make sure it happned, that in fact they sacrificed two entire seasons to get it? But that's not how it's perceived, is it? Every team is entitled to compete for a championship, after all why else bother with it? Isn't that the very attitude that threatens our society overall?

TheMoreYouKnow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 02:44 AM
  #49
Master Yoda
Master Deano
 
Master Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Country: South Korea
Posts: 107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
That might still happen. As long as it's the owners version of 50/50 and not the players.
I agree. I think Bettman is holding on to that "card" until the last moment. I don't think the NHL wants to give that up and then be in a position where they have to make another concession like they did with "make whole", revenue sharing, and fringe benefits.

Master Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 05:56 AM
  #50
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
( _)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,408
vCash: 13357
Quote:
"You can't idiot proof anything," an agent said. "I'm sick of the teams coming back to the players and saying, 'Please save us from ourselves. The 30 of us general managers can't control our spending, so you have to help us because we can't help ourselves.'"
This quote amusing me. If the owners/GMs "saved themselves" by unanimously agreeing not to overpay during free agency. The players would be whining about collision.

Bourne Endeavor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 08:45 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.