When this lockout ends, the billionaire owners might have diminished franchise value (?) but will still be billionaires..
I am not sure how many of them are true "billionaires". And anyone that looses a $200 million investment, while paying fixed costs on it, is not going to be happy.
Its only fishy if you drink the PA's kool-aid and think that revenue is inextricably linked to profits.
Its not when you're running a business - it is, however, if you're a player. Play hockey, go home, collect your guaranteed paycheck. If the PA got out of their bubble and realized that the world of business doesnt work that way, maybe it'd lead to more meaningful discussion.
I get that. However, then how do you spend several years crowing about how healthy the league is?
When nearly 60% of revenues are going to the players, its difficult to turn a profit, especially if you're not in NYC, Toronto, or any other huge markets.
what??
they're still making more money than they were at the time that they decided on 40/60% or w/e the current numbers are. now that the pool is bigger, they want a bigger cut. they don't want the players making more than X amount of money. they're just making less money relative to the players.
the non-HRR profits at the time of the last CBA's negotiations were likely of more relative value when compared to the HRR so the owners did not lose sleep over giving up some HRR. now that HRR is substantially even more than non-HRR, the owners want more of the pie.
Quote:
let's say you have a few friends that you always split pizza with. you split an even share every time, but today your brother-in-law steve is over and your wife is forcing you to play nice. 8 slices split w/ 4 people much easier than 5.
if you have 2 pizzas and 5 people. each pie is cut into 8 slices. each person gets 3 slices and there is one slice left. to be fair and honor the agreement, they'd have to cut that last piece into 5 little equal pieces. you and steve went out for lunch earlier and decide that the 1/5 piece isn't going to make any difference so you give it to the other three to split.
one week later, you have 3 pies cut into 8 pieces and 5 people. 24 slices. now there are 4 extra slices after everybody gets 4 pieces. the final 4 pieces can be split among all 5 of you with some fancy cutting. it's a bigger piece so it's worth a little more time investment to get it since you would love some leftover pizza for breakfast tomorrow. now let's say we're at your house and you're basically the boss of the pizza distribution.
3 of your friends are going home in 30 minutes, but steve is your freeloading brother-in-law and he's staying the week with you. if you stall on cutting the pie, steve and yourself will get 2 slices each. you could care less about 1/5th of a slice when you had lunch. i care a little more about 2 slices regardless of what i ate for lunch.
yes. most confusing probably off-topic explanation ever.
There are probably 5-10 teams tops actually making a profit in the NHL today. the rest are breaking even or losing money.
im sure most arent hemorrhaging money, im also sure most owners can lose a ton of money and have it not make a difference to their bottom line..but if im a team owner in a small market, having to pay the players what you have to pay them to be competitive, only to lose a ton of money...that SUCKS
they're still making more money than they were at the time that they decided on 40/60% or w/e the current numbers are. now that the pool is bigger, they want a bigger cut. they don't want the players making more than X amount of money. they're just making less money relative to the players.
.
The NHL is top heavy. Anything you say about revenues, profits, making more money they did before the lockout, etc, can be applied to a small number of teams (Rangers are one of them) - all of them of the big market variety. Middle of the road teams have seen little changes to their profitability. Smaller market teams have likely been hurt by this last CBA because they're forced to reach a cap floor.
Quit lumping the entire NHL into the argument that the revenue pool is larger. Its a lame, simplistic way of viewing the situation, and its simply not true.
Noone has seen the books, but its not difficult to imagine that the top 5 revenue producing teams have produced the vast majority of the extra revenue produced in the last CBA.
For what it's worth, Skille and Engelland currently playing for Rosenborg in Norway, expect the lockout to end soon. I'm not sure what kind of contacts they have, but they're probably talking to the PA.
The NHL is top heavy. Anything you say about revenues, profits, making more money they did before the lockout, etc, can be applied to a small number of teams (Rangers are one of them) - all of them of the big market variety. Middle of the road teams have seen little changes to their profitability. Smaller market teams have likely been hurt by this last CBA because they're forced to reach a cap floor.
Quit lumping the entire NHL into the argument that the revenue pool is larger. Its a lame, simplistic way of viewing the situation, and its simply not true.
Noone has seen the books, but its not difficult to imagine that the top 5 revenue producing teams have produced the vast majority of the extra revenue produced in the last CBA.
i'm not sure exactly what argument you're trying to make.
the owners are grouped together because they choose to be, just as the players choose to be. regardless of what the bottom tier teams may or may not have received in profits, the money is in the league. profits are at an all time high as a whole. the owners may choose not to share it, but it's there. if they want to keep 30 teams, they should be the ones dealing with the issue of their peers... or they should at least be a piece of it. not "well we think you guys are overpaid despite offering you new contracts in july and august!""
the league was the most profitable it has ever been. the money exists. league needs to find a way to get it-- be it a tax, team removal, or advertising or w/e. it's failed. nuff said... now i need a nap... damn these graveyards. hopefully that came out coherently enough
i'm not sure exactly what argument you're trying to make.
the owners are grouped together because they choose to be, just as the players choose to be. regardless of what the bottom tier teams may or may not have received in profits, the money is in the league. profits are at an all time high as a whole. the owners may choose not to share it, but it's there. if they want to keep 30 teams, they should be the ones dealing with the issue of their peers... or they should at least be a piece of it. not "well we think you guys are overpaid despite offering you new contracts in july and august!""
the league was the most profitable it has ever been. the money exists. league needs to find a way to get it-- be it a tax, team removal, or advertising or w/e. it's failed. nuff said... now i need a nap... damn these graveyards. hopefully that came out coherently enough
Find me one source stating the league is the most profitable it has ever been.
Bringing in the most revenue dollars? Yea sure. Adjust that for inflation and the rise of the Canadian dollar relative to the USD. After that the core fundamentals don't look as rosy. Not to mention that COSTS are also at an all time high. Labor, travel, etc.
Look I don't know what the exact numbers are better than anyone else out there (save for the league's auditor). But I can guarantee you that of the majority of teams were raking in money we'd be playing.
__________________
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame
Personally, I don't think any of the players are in a position to call anyone involved in the negotiation an idiot. They've lost more real dollars than they will ever be able to regain, even if they magically got the owners to approve of their proposal without any tweaks, which will never, ever happen. They're holding out indefinitely as if they somehow have more leverage than the owners when it's clear as day that that isn't the case.
Neither side looks good. Neither side is smart. Neither side cares about anything more than their ability to end this feeling like they won.
Also, i find it idiotic that the players are arguing that the league is doing well enough financially that they don't need to take pay cuts that bring them to the same level of athletes in far more successful leagues while ALSO arguing that Bettman has done nothing good for the game and is pushing the league into irrelevancy. Which is it? Is there so much money that you don't need to take a cut for the good of the league or is there so little money that it's proof that Bettman isn't doing good work?
i'm not sure exactly what argument you're trying to make.
the owners are grouped together because they choose to be, just as the players choose to be. regardless of what the bottom tier teams may or may not have received in profits, the money is in the league. profits are at an all time high as a whole. the owners may choose not to share it, but it's there. if they want to keep 30 teams, they should be the ones dealing with the issue of their peers... or they should at least be a piece of it. not "well we think you guys are overpaid despite offering you new contracts in july and august!""
the league was the most profitable it has ever been. the money exists. league needs to find a way to get it-- be it a tax, team removal, or advertising or w/e. it's failed. nuff said... now i need a nap... damn these graveyards. hopefully that came out coherently enough
How do you know the league is the most profitable its ever been? Again, revenues do not equal profits.
You're right about one thing - the record revenues are in the league, but 57% of it is going to the players.
I dont blame them for wanting to hold onto what has become a real sweetheart deal for them, but they're going to have to. Why? Because the skyrocketing cut the players have received over the years make it difficult for most teams to be profitable.
Its been quiet today. Steve Fehr issued a statement after the Bettman offer to Don Fehr was leaked. The PA was supposed to respond. Was the Steve Fehr statement the response? No tweets about any contact or the lack of contact before the two camps.
Its funny, the pro owner chant is the same as 8 years ago. They are saving the game from the players. The players make too much, just give us these controls and we will have 30 healthy franchises.
Funny how, after they created HRR standards and strict reporting rules, revenues jumped in 2005-06.
Three lockouts, two announced as victories, one pending outcome. Bettman always gets the deal he wants and blames the players for the state of the game later. 30 successful business men can't praise Gary enough and follow him blindly. Why would you keep handing him the keys? It doesn't add up.
Either 30 successful businessmen are just idiots with hockey, or they are selling fans magic beans every lockout.
If any commissioner made deals as bad as reported, he would be fired. Gary costs stoppages and still doesn't get a decent deal? And keeps his job? And its the players serving kool aid?
Speaking of kool aid, some of our posters must be NHL accountants. 54% to the players for most ofbthe deal with 57% as a threshold bonus. Now its 60% of revenues to the players. If you need to exaggerate to vilify the players, maybe they aren't the bad guy. They were forced into a 54% cap, accept 50% now. The league dictates the number. How is the blame on them?
Speaking of kool aid, some of our posters must be NHL accountants. 54% to the players for most ofbthe deal with 57% as a threshold bonus. Now its 60% of revenues to the players. If you need to exaggerate to vilify the players, maybe they aren't the bad guy. They were forced into a 54% cap, accept 50% now. The league dictates the number. How is the blame on them?
If the league was solely responsible for the percentage it would be zero.
Really, this is your defense? If he blamed owners, he would have spent the last five years finding a working system. The owners need to figure that out first. 50% buys the bottom teams time, not a solution. They'll be losing in two years tops.
If the league was solely responsible for the percentage it would be zero.
Are you 5? You are debating like a petulant brat.
What leverage did the players have in 2005 to dictate terms? The boss was ousted with a coup. They were publicly splintered. Their new boss was a league hack. They came hat in hand knowing that a cap and rollback were waiting. Bettman wanted 27/7 to flood the ufa market. Every concession was carefully constructed to work in the league's favor.
I can only speak for myself but I certainly am not trying to vilify anyone. The root cause for this lockout lies with ownership for 1. overexpanding and 2. lack of foresight in the 2005 CBA.
However as pissed as I am at Bettman / the Owners, the rhetoric and attitude coming from the PA is an equally huge turn off. The sense of entitlement, lack of basic business understanding (record revenuez!!!), and seeming unwillingness to work within the NHL's framework are not scoring any points with this observer.
What leverage did the players have in 2005 to dictate terms? The boss was ousted with a coup. They were publicly splintered. Their new boss was a league hack. They came hat in hand knowing that a cap and rollback were waiting. Bettman wanted 27/7 to flood the ufa market. Every concession was carefully constructed to work in the league's favor.
So you're really arguing that the players had no part in the % of HRR in the last CBA? The owners decided by themselves, and they chose 54-57%?
If lower UFA age was in favor of the owners why do they want to increase it now, and why are the players fighting it?
Every concession? How did and extra year of arbitration work in the league's favor? How about loosening restricted free agency?
I can only speak for myself but I certainly am not trying to vilify anyone. The root cause for this lockout lies with ownership for 1. overexpanding and 2. lack of foresight in the 2005 CBA.
However as pissed as I am at Bettman / the Owners, the rhetoric and attitude coming from the PA is an equally huge turn off. The sense of entitlement, lack of basic business understanding (record revenuez!!!), and seeming unwillingness to work within the NHL's framework are not scoring any points with this observer.
I hear you. Point one is bad business sense. The owners solely expand and relocate. These bad markets are the root of the lockout, the majority of loses. If gary held WPG, QUE, MIN to their cities like PHX, we'd be better off. If he expanded cautiously, salaries are in check. To me, that nullifies the risk/profit issue. The owners/bettman created the problem, why are they entitled to make a profit.
The players are hung up on inked deals, if that is entitlement, so be it. I think the framework argument is outdated. Looks like the issue is over contract structure now.
The players are difficult but between the last two lockouts, when do they concede enough?
The players aren't angels, i just can't get behind the guy that cannot fix anything. We trust him to finally get it right? He blames the system and insists on re-using it. Senseless.
So you're really arguing that the players had no part in the % of HRR in the last CBA? The owners decided by themselves, and they chose 54-57%?
If lower UFA age was in favor of the owners why do they want to increase it now, and why are the players fighting it?
Every concession? How did and extra year of arbitration work in the league's favor? How about loosening restricted free agency?
If the cut was any lower, teams would have bought out their stars and drowned in amnesty buyouts just to get under a $33-35m cap. It was the most favorable % for owners considering buyouts. When the lockout started, a $45m cap was the consensus magic number. If the league didn't want 57%, why buckle in Feb/Mar? Still 3-5 months from the draft.
The 27/7 was a disaster. Opposite impact. No one hit UFA, teams held onto players tighter because of the invest vs return. You lose a guy after a few prime years. I'm not saying players didn't win that, or the lockout, ultimately. I'm just saying the league dictated the terms.
It's splitting hairs, but arbitration and rfa rules were established years before. Are we still treating carry over rights as a concession? It certainly wasn't a gain. Maybe a year here and there for the player, but seriously?
