HFBoards

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

2012 CBA Discussion Part IV (Lockout talk here)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-15-2012, 04:19 PM
  #101
Braunbaer
also a giraffe
 
Braunbaer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: Germany
Posts: 1,785
vCash: 500
They get millions for playing hockey, their passion.

That's as fat and happy as it can get.
I don't feel bad for a guy like Ference who doesn't earn much at the moment.
He earns more during one NHL season than I do in my entire life.

Braunbaer is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 04:21 PM
  #102
Roll 4 Lines
Gitchyasum!
 
Roll 4 Lines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bear Country
Country: United States
Posts: 5,865
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=WhamBamCam8;55790849]It kind of is though, no? . If the players want to make this type of stupid money, they will have to do it by the rules set forth by the business owners, no? Many of these businesses are not even turning a profit. Maybe the league should be like a Starbucks and shut down all the locations that are unable to turn an acceptable profit. Now, the 1000 member NHLPA has to fight each other for 500 jobs. Honestly, what field of business would say Milan Lucic make 6 mil bucks? Marchand 4+ mil? Bergeron 5+ mil? Three quarters of these owners could use the money they invest in their hockey operations into some other investments and make more then they do now. I feel for the players...They get screwed at every turn...but you know what? So do I. I make very good money, but it's less then it was 5 years ago. My health coverage has doubled. My company pension plan liquidated and I am in charge of saving more for my retirement...like many of you...[/QUOTE]

The first bolded is why it's hard to not think of the players as "fat & happy."

The second just reinforces it. And when I add in the fact that when my divorce is final, and all of my retirement will be gone...... it makes me realize that....it will all be worth it!!

Roll 4 Lines is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 04:22 PM
  #103
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,147
vCash: 500
another thought... if the players do actually believe its so profitable to be 'owners'

and they also want to stay in shape...

why the hell didnt the union take up a collection... go to some market like hamilton that has buildings that arent NHL controlled... rent them out... and set up an exhibition season?

try to sell tickets even... im not talking about some tour gimmick...

set up an actual league... take a turn at being owners?

i mean if it actually is such a profitable business to be in...

and if the goal is only to stay in shape anyhow...

dont take jobs from other 'members of your side' create some for yourself... and if it works... get organized this year... and then strike next year.

if the players feel they have no leverage in this lockout... its because they dont. But if they created a viable alternative then they would. They could run their own league for a year or two... and get a true taste of what problems owners really do have...

then if its successful... come back and slit the NHL throats getting the dream new deal of their choice.

Or if they all go broke... come back and say ohhhh... so thats how it is? wow, no wonder you guys wanted a better deal

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 04:26 PM
  #104
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,303
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhamBamCam8 View Post
It kind of is though, no? . If the players want to make this type of stupid money, they will have to do it by the rules set forth by the business owners, no? Many of these businesses are not even turning a profit. Maybe the league should be like a Starbucks and shut down all the locations that are unable to turn an acceptable profit. Now, the 1000 member NHLPA has to fight each other for 500 jobs. Honestly, what field of business would say Milan Lucic make 6 mil bucks? Marchand 4+ mil? Bergeron 5+ mil? Three quarters of these owners could use the money they invest in their hockey operations into some other investments and make more then they do now. I feel for the players...They get screwed at every turn...but you know what? So do I. I make very good money, but it's less then it was 5 years ago. My health coverage has doubled. My company pension plan liquidated and I am in charge of saving more for my retirement...like many of you...
No it isn't. I see what you're saying, but the product that these business people sell... is other people. And the product itself is unionized.

Some don't dig on the thought, but for better or worse... This is a PARTNERSHIP. And as long as many continue to take the attitude you express in this post, we'll never see labor peace in the NHL.

Mr. Make-Believe is online now  
Old
11-15-2012, 04:29 PM
  #105
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,303
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
another thought... if the players do actually believe its so profitable to be 'owners'

and they also want to stay in shape...

why the hell didnt the union take up a collection... go to some market like hamilton that has buildings that arent NHL controlled... rent them out... and set up an exhibition season?

try to sell tickets even... im not talking about some tour gimmick...

set up an actual league... take a turn at being owners?

i mean if it actually is such a profitable business to be in...

and if the goal is only to stay in shape anyhow...

dont take jobs from other 'members of your side' create some for yourself... and if it works... get organized this year... and then strike next year.

if the players feel they have no leverage in this lockout... its because they dont. But if they created a viable alternative then they would. They could run their own league for a year or two... and get a true taste of what problems owners really do have...

then if its successful... come back and slit the NHL throats getting the dream new deal of their choice.

Or if they all go broke... come back and say ohhhh... so thats how it is? wow, no wonder you guys wanted a better deal
Where the hell does THAT come from?

And yes they DO have leverage. If they didn't, we would be watching NHL hockey tonight.

Mr. Make-Believe is online now  
Old
11-15-2012, 04:31 PM
  #106
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
So it's a ridiculous question to try to understand your point of view, rather than to just make assumptions? Gotcha.

I find it odd that someone who calls NHL players "fat and happy" can then turn around and root for them. I have to like someone before I wish him well. If you find me odd for that, feel free.
isnt it possible to operate under the system... for the owners.. for the players... for the fans too?

isnt it possible for us fans to call a spade a spade... to understand the players are the driving force for high ticket prices and the need for goverment handouts... that they repersent the biggest expense involved in the game we love...

but for us to still love the game anyhow?

i cheer the current players... but i cheered the ones 20 years ago too. those guys left the game and new guys took over. one day the new guys will be gone and someone else will be playing and ill cheer those players too.

anyone that plays the game... becomes my new heros. these current players dont have the right to destroy the game imo. they inherited a game that was built for them... they will need to pass it off to the next generation at some point.

you might feel that the current economic model isnt killing the game. i feel otherwise as does kaos by the looks of his posts... as do the owners... and many others.

we still will cheer whatever players eventually take to the ice... cause we love the game and it has to be played by someone. Id cheer the ahl guys if they put on the uniforms as replacement players.

at the end of the day... anyone that puts on a boston bruin uniform becomes my hero, but when they are standing up a visit to the white house, or drinking and driving, or wife abusing, or walking out on signed contracts, or demanding trades, or whatever... whatever... then i dont need to support every freaking single thing they do off the ice just because i like what they do on the ice for MY TEAM.

thats how we justify enjoying what these guys do on the ice when they are PRIVLEDGED to be the CURRENT GENERATION of players... but still get upset when their unreasonable union demands get in the way of the long term health of the GAME cause its actually ultimately the GAME we love more then we love whatever current players are playing the game.

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 04:31 PM
  #107
Artemis
Took the red pill
 
Artemis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: United States
Posts: 18,823
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunbaer View Post
They get millions for playing hockey, their passion.

That's as fat and happy as it can get.
I don't feel bad for a guy like Ference who doesn't earn much at the moment.
He earns more during one NHL season than I do in my entire life.
I don't think anyone feels bad for Andrew Ference, including Andrew Ference.

Artemis is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 04:35 PM
  #108
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,303
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
isnt it possible for us fans to call a spade a spade... to understand the players are the driving force for high ticket prices and the need for goverment handouts... that they repersent the biggest expense involved in the game we love...
Um. That would be supply and demand, my friend. That's the culprit you're looking for.

Mr. Make-Believe is online now  
Old
11-15-2012, 04:35 PM
  #109
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
Where the hell does THAT come from?

And yes they DO have leverage. If they didn't, we would be watching NHL hockey tonight.
we arent watching hockey right now because the players are refusing to deal with the cuts 'without getting something back'

they keep saying... whats in it for us.

the anwer right now... in their opinion... is nothing.

if they had leverage the owners would give them... something

but they dont. so they are just holding out now until they eventually have to swallow a distasteful reality. at some point they will give in to most {all} of the owner demands.

the players again and again and again say... we will play under the current system. They arent the ones trying to sit out. They are sitting out because they are locked out.

the owners are ramming an offer down the players throats and the players simply havent decided to swallow it yet. But that will happen.

its only a matter of time.. and in the meantime us fans get screwed over after we use our taxpayer dollars to float this system for both the players and owners. we are the only ones invested that dont get a seat at the table.

sucks

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 04:38 PM
  #110
Braunbaer
also a giraffe
 
Braunbaer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: Germany
Posts: 1,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
I don't think anyone feels bad for Andrew Ference, including Andrew Ference.
Maybe I just didn't manage to say what I actually intended to.
You know, they're fighting over those huge amounts of money, it's just disgusting.

If they love the game as much as they always say in those dramatic video-clips, then imo, they should just play. Why do they care about a few hundred thousand dollars anyway? It's peanuts for them.

Braunbaer is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 04:39 PM
  #111
WBC8
Registered User
 
WBC8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: HFL 4 Life
Country: United States
Posts: 36,865
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to WBC8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
No it isn't. I see what you're saying, but the product that these business people sell... is other people. And the product itself is unionized.

Some don't dig on the thought, but for better or worse... This is a PARTNERSHIP. And as long as many continue to take the attitude you express in this post, we'll never see labor peace in the NHL.
It's advertised as that, but do you really think the owners and players feel like that? They are necessary evils for each other, but it's hardly a partnership IMO. You have owners, and you have employees. Why don't the players decertify, find new investors and start up their own league? Because they know they will never get as sweet as a deal as they are going to wind up with, no matter what concessions they make. Why don't the owners start up a new league? Because most of them didn't make any money with the best players in the world, so most are better off if they don't play with this current type of economic system.

Players are screwed...period. I hate big business!

WBC8 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 04:41 PM
  #112
WBC8
Registered User
 
WBC8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: HFL 4 Life
Country: United States
Posts: 36,865
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to WBC8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
we arent watching hockey right now because the players are refusing to deal with the cuts 'without getting something back'

they keep saying... whats in it for us.

the anwer right now... in their opinion... is nothing.

if they had leverage the owners would give them... something

but they dont. so they are just holding out now until they eventually have to swallow a distasteful reality. at some point they will give in to most {all} of the owner demands.

the players again and again and again say... we will play under the current system. They arent the ones trying to sit out. They are sitting out because they are locked out.

the owners are ramming an offer down the players throats and the players simply havent decided to swallow it yet. But that will happen.

its only a matter of time.. and in the meantime us fans get screwed over after we use our taxpayer dollars to float this system for both the players and owners. we are the only ones invested that dont get a seat at the table.

sucks
Sadly I agree with this.... The players will come out on the short end again...and every time.

WBC8 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 04:43 PM
  #113
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
Um. That would be supply and demand, my friend. That's the culprit you're looking for.
the players artifically bargain as a collective cause otherwise the league would be in violation of many labor laws

the owners... 30 individual groups with 30 agendas appoint repersentation to bargin for their side of things. that repersentation has 30 boses to try to appease.

over their heads... is the LAW and anti combind laws and right to work laws. Sports leagues are in violation of alot of laws.

so years ago... the union used the threat of these laws to get things like free agency... arbitration... other tools

then the owners eventually asked for a cap... they agreed to tie it to HRR.

again the owners cant act unilateral or the LAW will step in.

the % agreed to... turned out to be too much

its like in a poker game... you bid too much on a losing hand early in the night... are you obligated to do it again next time you have the same losing hand???

or are you allowed to learn from your mistakes?

the players got the money... cause they bargained for it under the old CBA. They got it cause some owners have HUGE egos. They got it cause some GMS are DESPERATE to keep their jobs. And they got it cause sometimes arbitration hands it to them in very stupid settlements. and they got it cause they will get to ufa and someone else will give it to them

sure... you call it supply and demand... but the supply is being fueled by taxpayer handouts to the tune of 100s of millions of dollars per year. How much are the taxpayers in miami on the hook for the new baseball stadium? i read a story this morning tis 2 billion dollars for them. How much did phoenix taxpayers hand out the last couple years. 50 million? more? will the team leave anyhow???

you say the supply is there to give the players an average of 2.5 mill a year salary but the evidence says that about 10 teams cant continue doing this and stay in business... even with taxpayer handouts in the double figures in alot of these markets.

so... no... its not called supply and demand... its called a BROKEN ECONOMIC MODEL that needs to be fixed even at the expense of a lockout and a lost season

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 04:43 PM
  #114
jahbrations
Registered User
 
jahbrations's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhamBamCam8 View Post
I remember the President of the United States commenting how the NFL needs to get worked out.... You think he even knows hockey is on lockout?

jahbrations is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 04:47 PM
  #115
Artemis
Took the red pill
 
Artemis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: United States
Posts: 18,823
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunbaer View Post
Maybe I just didn't manage to say what I actually intended to.
You know, they're fighting over those huge amounts of money, it's just disgusting.

If they love the game as much as they always say in those dramatic video-clips, then imo, they should just play. Why do they care about a few hundred thousand dollars anyway? It's peanuts for them.
It's not just about the money. It's about everything, including money.

And a "few hundred thousand" may be "peanuts" to someone like Sidney Crosby, but there are many more players like Shawn Thornton, who was scheduled to make a million dollars this season for the first time in his professional career.

I think there's a serious misconception about how much pro hockey players make.

Artemis is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 04:47 PM
  #116
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,303
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhamBamCam8 View Post
It's advertised as that, but do you really think the owners and players feel like that? They are necessary evils for each other, but it's hardly a partnership IMO. You have owners, and you have employees. Why don't the players decertify, find new investors and start up their own league? Because they know they will never get as sweet as a deal as they are going to wind up with, no matter what concessions they make. Why don't the owners start up a new league? Because most of them didn't make any money with the best players in the world, so most are better off if they don't play with this current type of economic system.

Players are screwed...period. I hate big business!
No no no. They DON'T feel that. That's my point.

But it IS the reality. The fact that neither side is dealing with that actuality (for SOME good reason, and some BAD reason) is why we're not watching NHL hockey right now.

Mr. Make-Believe is online now  
Old
11-15-2012, 04:48 PM
  #117
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussellmaniaKW View Post
Here's something I've always wondered....it's clear that the players absolutely detest Bettman. Why don't they come out and say that they refuse to sign a new CBA until Bettman is replaced? I'm not even trying to be funny here....if I was an NHLPA member and wanted to ensure that this didn't happen again in another 6 years I'd insist that Bettman lose his job. It's funny that they were so quick to oust Paul Kelly but have not tried to pressure Bettman out of his position. I know they don't have any direct power to do so, but using the lockout as leverage is probably the only opportunity they'll ever have.
isnt this something akin to terrorism... dont most sane people have a policy not to negotiate with terrorists?

i think the owners as a group feel that bettman has in general done very very well for them. this would be like your kid telling you get rid of your wife if she is making them do their homework and eat their veggies.

you dont let the children make you get rid of your spouse just because they want to throw a temper tantrum with you and you dont negotiate with terrorists and you dont fire bettman unless you yourself get unhappy with him for doign a bad job

right now they arnet unhappy cause hes doing a good job

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 04:53 PM
  #118
Braunbaer
also a giraffe
 
Braunbaer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: Germany
Posts: 1,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
It's not just about the money. It's about everything, including money.

And a "few hundred thousand" may be "peanuts" to someone like Sidney Crosby, but there are many more players like Shawn Thornton, who was scheduled to make a million dollars this season for the first time in his professional career.

I think there's a serious misconception about how much pro hockey players make.
Well, even a guy who cannot play hockey at all like John Scott makes 500k $ a year.
I mean, what does that guy even bring to the table?
And yet he makes much more than 10 times the money the average guy makes.

Braunbaer is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 04:55 PM
  #119
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,303
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
the players artifically bargain as a collective cause otherwise the league would be in violation of many labor laws

the owners... 30 individual groups with 30 agendas appoint repersentation to bargin for their side of things. that repersentation has 30 boses to try to appease.

over their heads... is the LAW and anti combind laws and right to work laws. Sports leagues are in violation of alot of laws.

so years ago... the union used the threat of these laws to get things like free agency... arbitration... other tools

then the owners eventually asked for a cap... they agreed to tie it to HRR.

again the owners cant act unilateral or the LAW will step in.

the % agreed to... turned out to be too much

its like in a poker game... you bid too much on a losing hand early in the night... are you obligated to do it again next time you have the same losing hand???

or are you allowed to learn from your mistakes?

the players got the money... cause they bargained for it under the old CBA. They got it cause some owners have HUGE egos. They got it cause some GMS are DESPERATE to keep their jobs. And they got it cause sometimes arbitration hands it to them in very stupid settlements. and they got it cause they will get to ufa and someone else will give it to them

sure... you call it supply and demand... but the supply is being fueled by taxpayer handouts to the tune of 100s of millions of dollars per year. How much are the taxpayers in miami on the hook for the new baseball stadium? i read a story this morning tis 2 billion dollars for them. How much did phoenix taxpayers hand out the last couple years. 50 million? more? will the team leave anyhow???

you say the supply is there to give the players an average of 2.5 mill a year salary but the evidence says that about 10 teams cant continue doing this and stay in business... even with taxpayer handouts in the double figures in alot of these markets.

so... no... its not called supply and demand... its called a BROKEN ECONOMIC MODEL that needs to be fixed even at the expense of a lockout and a lost season
You keep bringing up taxpayers' cash, but I wonder where you get your figures from? If taxpayers weren't willing to fork over the cash needed to build new arenas (and whatever else), then they wouldn't. (There are BENEFITS to that money being spent in that way.) Those people are also the ones who vote in the decision-makers as to where their money goes. It's why we haven't seen a new arena in Edmonton yet. People in that city are split as to whether or not it would be beneficial.

And I agree with you that players are taking too big a piece of the HRR pie. OOG turned me on to the problems that the league faces a long while back. No doubt about it - their share is too large for a financially viable NHL.

But the reason that the salaries have increased, is because revenues have. The NHL brings in more money and by tying salaries directly TO that cash, the players do as well. That's supply and demand... Not an unrealistic player base that expects too much.

Mr. Make-Believe is online now  
Old
11-15-2012, 05:02 PM
  #120
BlackNgold 84
Known Kellyist
 
BlackNgold 84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 2,486
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
This is Barnaby to me.

Barnaby and kaleta.. is it a pre-requisite for the number 36 jersey to be worn by a complete asshat?...

also.. on the labor negotiation.. daly says he's the most discouraged he's been since the whole thing started. This is just a joke.. Just shut down the season already.

BlackNgold 84 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 05:03 PM
  #121
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
It seems of the two of us, I'm the one closest to bringing anything like facts to the table so far. Sorry, you made the comment. You've brought speculation and conjecture to this point. If you have more accurate financial figures, please feel free to throw them out there.

First, facts to back up my point that even teams showing minimal profit in that report likely lost money... at the very top of the Operating Income column you'll notice that it specifically mentions those profits are before things such as "Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization". Also...
The NHL's Problem: Only Three Teams Are Making Real Money

I don't know what they consider real money but that article actually shows more than 3 teams making real money. They also didn't include franchise value gain or do any analysis of how and why teams aren't making real money.

Bottom line, based on that information most teams are losing money (or aren't making any). I look forward to any reports you can provide that show the contrary.

To deal with your points individually. Re. the hard cap and the owners rejecting the proposal in the last CBA. The hard cap you seem to be talking about was actually put in place, being definied as a cap that must be strictly adhered to. When I say hard cap I mean a static figure that doesn't grow as revenues grow, as revenue growth figures are often skewed by one or two teams. The majority of NHL teams are losing money or are barely breaking even (again, unless you have numbers to the contrary.

Re. players wanting a hard cap and owners rejecting it last time around. The PA wanted nothing to do with any type of salary cap. I know you're a stickler for proof, so...

Better said would be they didn't come to an agreement on a hard cap - but it was on the table.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004%E2...05_NHL_lockout

From the article: - On February 14, the union offered to accept a $52 million salary cap under the condition that it was not linked to league revenues. The league proposed a counteroffer with a $40 million cap plus $2.2 million in benefits, which the players association refused. The next day, Bettman sent Goodenow a letter with a final proposal of a $42.5 million cap plus $2.2 million in benefits, setting a deadline of 11:00 am the next day to accept or refuse the offer. The NHLPA presented a counter-offer involving a $49 million cap, which the league rejected.[11]

That was a hard cap. Somewhere between $45M and $49M. Spending would have been well south of that with no floor. Spending has been close or over that under this CBA with it much higher the last couple years.


Re. Teams always being able to find a buyer. The LA Kings have been rumored to have been up for sale for 3 years now. We all know the debacle going on in Phoenix. No one's pulled the trigger on the Devils yet and they're now in a massive hole. And don't forget the proof:

The Kings officially went on sale in mid September of this year. They are also selling the AEG unit which includes other things not just the Kings. You can't claim the Kings aren't selling (based on a rumor - not fact) when they have officially just went on sale and there are other parts to the sale. These things don't happen overnight.

Many teams have sold in the last few years as AOF likes to point out to me. If there aren't buyers how did they get sold? Phoenix had a buyer 3 years ago to move the team. The NHL is asking $170M when the team is worth $134M. They have a buyer trying to keep the team in Phoenix right now. I did put qualifiers on my statement. New Jersey is a mess because the guy can't afford his team. They made money over the last CBA. They now have debt almost 1.5 times the teams value and have been one of the highest spenders over the last CBA. Of course that isn't an easy sale. You have one unnamed GM saying there aren't any owners left citing a growing list of teams for sale (listed 2 teams, 1 of which has denied it) and that is your facts that teams won't sell and no one wants to buy them? Give me a break.


The owners aren't crying poor, they're saying the NHL isn't profitable and by all appearances (again, unless you bring some proof to the contrary) they're absolutely right. If your argument is "it's all common sense" simply look at the teams that stayed well below the salary cap last year and still lost money.

Crying poor, complaining they can't make money - same thing. Proof is throughout my post. Minnesota's owner is perfect proof that the owners are actually making money - or don't care if they are losing money. He owned Nashville - claimed he lost $70M, yet sold the team for $113M more than he paid, then bought Minnesota. He says he is losing money again, then spends $13M more this year on contracts for Parise & Suter. You can keep buying the owners BS but they are either making money or don't care that they are losing it. So he lost $70M, despite that he bought another team, claims he is losing money again, and spends $13M more? Sorry not buying that he is losing money and the numbers show that he hasn't.

Hopefully that suffices, but if not feel free to throw it out there again. The information is plastered all over the internet for everyone to see. It seems to be the norm for people to say "oh well, they'r erich, this is just a hobby for them". That's ridiculous, no one wants to lose money on a venture no matter what their current bankroll is..
Some responses are bolded in your quote. I couldn't get multiquote to work so you can break up a rebuttal however you like.

You are right the facts are all over the internet. Instead of using one number (operating income for 2011); I have chosen to look at all of the numbers, how and why each team makes or loses money, factored in the players offer, TV contract, etc. What they show is 24 teams made money over the last CBA. The reason teams didn't make more/lose less is the owners. The new players offer takes care of all money issues. And if the owners are all in this to make money some certainly aren't showing it with how they run their teams.

I have put up plenty of facts. You said the Bruins in fact likely lost money. Prove it to me with numbers. If you can't then lets take the Forbes number at face value. I'm pretty sure there are things not accounted for on the revenue side as well but I can't prove they made more so I won't try.

My facts are from Forbes. They don't have 1 article that covers the whole CBA. Just because I don't link to every article doesn't mean the numbers I state aren't facts. I have looked at each years P&L from the Forbes numbers, and franchise value gain or loss and put them all in a spreadsheet. This year only 9 teams lost money. Over the CBA only 6 teams lost money. Only 3 teams lost any significant (relative) money. That is at 54 to 57%, overspending their budget, cap circumventing contracts, carrying too much debt.

Here are the losses: Net/Year is the important figure. Then look at their debt value and how much they spent over what they had to as required by the cap floor.

TEAM 20062007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total04Value12ValueGainValue/YearIncome/YearNet/YearDebtValue%$OverCapFloor
Coyotes-$6.0-$11.4-$9.7 -$18.5-$20.1-$24.4-$90.1$136$134-$2-$0.3-$15.0-$15.326%$6.7
Islanders-$9.2-$11.6-$8.8-$5.6-$4.5-$8.1-$47.8$159$149-$10-$1.3-$8.0-$9.267%$0.8
BlueJackets-$4.0-$5.6-$7.1-$9.9-$7.3-$13.7-$47.6$139$152 $13$1.6-$7.9-$6.366%$13.0
Panthers-$1.9-$7.1-$9.4-$13.6-$9.6-$7.0-$48.6$121$162$41$5.1-$8.1-$3.059%$7.2
Blues$1.0-$5.5-$8.6-$2.7 -$6.2-$2.7-$24.7$140$157$17$2.1-$4.1-$2.081%$6.6
Avalanche$5.9$6.6$2.3$3.4$2.3$6.1$26.6$237$198-$39-$4.8$4.4-$0.412%$1.1

So only 2 teams would have lost money if they spent less money down to the floor. 4 wouldn't have had to cut payroll by much. Now had they spent within their budget the franchise value also usually goes up. The numbers (facts) show that the last CBA was very good for the owners. Record revenue, profit and franchise values. Very few teams in any actual trouble.

Now add in the money from the players offer. Add the new TV contract. Add the increased revenue sharing for these teams. Add in the savings as they pay down debt from now being profitable. The owners also get all money if a team is relocated or for new franchises which I'm sure will happen. Relocate Phoenix as the owners could have done at a profit 3 years ago and what does that do to the numbers?

Your facts are actually a lot of speculation, rumors, false, and/or incomplete.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 05:19 PM
  #122
Ladyfan
Miss you Savvy !
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: next to the bench
Country: Scotland
Posts: 27,050
vCash: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
If he just took the escrow and union allowance he'd probably be OK financially. What he's referring to is what it's costing him to play in the Czech Republic, i.e. how much he's earning vs. how much he's paying. Obviously he's not begging in the streets, but obviously he's not fattening his bank account either. He's breaking even or paying a little bit because he needs to play.

The notion that NHL players are all fat and happy in Europe is incorrect. Be mad at the players if you want; there's plenty to be mad over without false assumptions.

And as a fan, I'd rather see them play than get rusty.
Me too.

__________________
"Bergeron...Bergeron !!!"
Ladyfan is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 05:22 PM
  #123
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,303
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
Some responses are bolded in your quote. I couldn't get multiquote to work so you can break up a rebuttal however you like.

You are right the facts are all over the internet. Instead of using one number (operating income for 2011); I have chosen to look at all of the numbers, how and why each team makes or loses money, factored in the players offer, TV contract, etc. What they show is 24 teams made money over the last CBA. The reason teams didn't make more/lose less is the owners. The new players offer takes care of all money issues. And if the owners are all in this to make money some certainly aren't showing it with how they run their teams.

I have put up plenty of facts. You said the Bruins in fact likely lost money. Prove it to me with numbers. If you can't then lets take the Forbes number at face value. I'm pretty sure there are things not accounted for on the revenue side as well but I can't prove they made more so I won't try.

My facts are from Forbes. They don't have 1 article that covers the whole CBA. Just because I don't link to every article doesn't mean the numbers I state aren't facts. I have looked at each years P&L from the Forbes numbers, and franchise value gain or loss and put them all in a spreadsheet. This year only 9 teams lost money. Over the CBA only 6 teams lost money. Only 3 teams lost any significant (relative) money. That is at 54 to 57%, overspending their budget, cap circumventing contracts, carrying too much debt.

Here are the losses: Net/Year is the important figure. Then look at their debt value and how much they spent over what they had to as required by the cap floor.

TEAM 20062007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total04Value12ValueGainValue/YearIncome/YearNet/YearDebtValue%$OverCapFloor
Coyotes-$6.0-$11.4-$9.7 -$18.5-$20.1-$24.4-$90.1$136$134-$2-$0.3-$15.0-$15.326%$6.7
Islanders-$9.2-$11.6-$8.8-$5.6-$4.5-$8.1-$47.8$159$149-$10-$1.3-$8.0-$9.267%$0.8
BlueJackets-$4.0-$5.6-$7.1-$9.9-$7.3-$13.7-$47.6$139$152 $13$1.6-$7.9-$6.366%$13.0
Panthers-$1.9-$7.1-$9.4-$13.6-$9.6-$7.0-$48.6$121$162$41$5.1-$8.1-$3.059%$7.2
Blues$1.0-$5.5-$8.6-$2.7 -$6.2-$2.7-$24.7$140$157$17$2.1-$4.1-$2.081%$6.6
Avalanche$5.9$6.6$2.3$3.4$2.3$6.1$26.6$237$198-$39-$4.8$4.4-$0.412%$1.1

So only 2 teams would have lost money if they spent less money down to the floor. 4 wouldn't have had to cut payroll by much. Now had they spent within their budget the franchise value also usually goes up. The numbers (facts) show that the last CBA was very good for the owners. Record revenue, profit and franchise values. Very few teams in any actual trouble.

Now add in the money from the players offer. Add the new TV contract. Add the increased revenue sharing for these teams. Add in the savings as they pay down debt from now being profitable. The owners also get all money if a team is relocated or for new franchises which I'm sure will happen. Relocate Phoenix as the owners could have done at a profit 3 years ago and what does that do to the numbers?

Your facts are actually a lot of speculation, rumors, false, and/or incomplete.
One thing I love about ya, dude... You're willing to put the effort in.

I still say that the primary argument from the NHL's side of the issue, is that few teams are actually profitable. And that part of the reason that some see the revenue they do is because of a willingness to spend greater than the floor.

Where anything I've proposed differs from what I've heard, is that the players' cut in HRR percentage DIRECTLY ALLOCATES toward revenue-share. I think that it's critical and addresses both sides' positions on the subject.

Mr. Make-Believe is online now  
Old
11-15-2012, 05:29 PM
  #124
Artemis
Took the red pill
 
Artemis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: United States
Posts: 18,823
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunbaer View Post
Well, even a guy who cannot play hockey at all like John Scott makes 500k $ a year.
I mean, what does that guy even bring to the table?
And yet he makes much more than 10 times the money the average guy makes.
What he has brought to the table, from what I've seen of him, is the ability to get his head pounded in. It's more money than the average guy makes, certainly, but it does involve a little more job stress. Whether it's worth a few hundred thousand, I guess that's a matter of opinion.

He's played six years of professional hockey and has played 146 NHL games. He's 30 years old. I hope he's saved his money, because I can't see him with a much longer career. After paying his agent and his taxes, he might have a decent nest egg. If he manages to squeeze in 14 more games (a bigger "if" if the lockout lasts the year) he'll qualify for an NHL pension, but he'll have to wait another 15 years before he collects.

Artemis is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 05:36 PM
  #125
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
You keep bringing up taxpayers' cash, but I wonder where you get your figures from? If taxpayers weren't willing to fork over the cash needed to build new arenas (and whatever else), then they wouldn't. (There are BENEFITS to that money being spent in that way.) Those people are also the ones who vote in the decision-makers as to where their money goes. It's why we haven't seen a new arena in Edmonton yet. People in that city are split as to whether or not it would be beneficial.

And I agree with you that players are taking too big a piece of the HRR pie. OOG turned me on to the problems that the league faces a long while back. No doubt about it - their share is too large for a financially viable NHL.

But the reason that the salaries have increased, is because revenues have. The NHL brings in more money and by tying salaries directly TO that cash, the players do as well. That's supply and demand... Not an unrealistic player base that expects too much.
the figures come in dribs and drabs

for example right now the oilers are asking for like a 6 mill annual subsidy to operate the new arena... this after origionally promising 100 million out of pocket.

the city hasnt agreed yet.. but the local provincial goverment does run a special lottery for the team

in pittsburg the city gave the ownership group a casino

in tampa they rezoned huge tracks of land

in most cities there huge tax breaks that other businesses dont get

a story today says that florida was promised the marlins would be competitive when they okayed the new arena... different sport i know

in phonix the city approved 25 million a year kickback to the league to run the team the last couple years

how many teams have taxpayer built arenas in the last 10-20 years? how many of the cities/states are financing debt to pay off those buildings?

i mean.. really... i dont have the exact figures cause the exact figures dont get released to people like me... but you yourself must be able to see this fro yourself. cant you?

unless you are in total denial.. ?

it totals into the 100s of millions easy

Alberta_OReilly_Fan 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 12:34 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.