HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Pittsburgh Penguins
Notices

2012 CBA & Re-alignment: Lockout in Effect. Thanks Gary/Donald! PART II

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-16-2012, 12:17 PM
  #726
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Hook View Post
The NFL lockout wouldn't have been resolved so easily if Fehr were the leader of the NFLPA. The guy is unreasonable. Selig was his ***** and it ruined a lot of things in baseball. I kind of like that Bettman isn't a push over like Selig but these two colossal egos (Bettman/Fehr) are going to significantly hurt the game with this lockout. They should put egos aside and find some compromise but I'm not holding my breath.
As I keep pointing out, Fehr is a direct result of Bettman's actions. Had he not gone for blood to stick it to BG and the NHLPA by forcing the rollbacks AND the cap, we would have had BG or Kelly still heading up the union and be watching hockey right now... Not discussing the disgrace Bettman has made of this league.

A good leader knows how to find that balance and not create so much hatred and mistrust. Unfortunately, Bettman hasn't figured that out yet... So now we get the Fehr sideshow along with Bettman's incompetence.

The only one more idiotic than these two, is me, for thinking common sense would prevail... Forgetting that Bettman from the three lockouts, to Spano, Boots, etc has always been quite lacking in the common sense dept.


Last edited by End of Line: 11-16-2012 at 07:13 PM.
Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 12:33 PM
  #727
Wes C Addle
Mookie Blaylock
 
Wes C Addle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Allentown, Pa
Country: United States
Posts: 1,019
vCash: 500
NHL Lockout: Why do billionaires keep buying teams that lose money?

A good piece on the financial state of the Florida Panthers for anyone that's interested.

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...at-lose-money/

Quote:
Last year, Forbes estimated that the Panthers lost $7 million. Over the last nine seasons, they calculate the Panthers total losses at $68 million, an average deficit of $7.5 million per season.

Interestingly, the picture that Forbes paints is at odds with that presented by Broward County. Broward County was primarily responsible for the construction of the Panthers’ arena, and as a result gets to look at the books of the organization. According to the county auditor, the organization made $117.4 million in profit between 1998 and 2012.

Wes C Addle is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 12:34 PM
  #728
mpp9
Registered User
 
mpp9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 16,974
vCash: 500
I'm just not seeing why the players would hold out past december. You're not going to get a better deal. No way does the league sign off on a season of less than 40 games. If the players don't make a legit counter proposal in the next few weeks to negotiate off of, the season's done, they'll never get that money back and it's still possible they did nothing to improve the contracts for the future.

I'm just not understanding their side of it at this point. And I'd be curious if the the entire PA took a vote on the league's next proposal (I'm assuming they'll make another push in a couple weeks), what the majority would say.

mpp9 is online now  
Old
11-16-2012, 12:50 PM
  #729
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wes C Addle View Post
A good piece on the financial state of the Florida Panthers for anyone that's interested.

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...at-lose-money/
Thx for posting this. It basically backups everything I said months ago about these sweetheart arena deals and accounting magic.

So either Broward county is lying or the billionaire owners of the Panthers... Tough one...

Hopefully Ragamuffin reads this *cough*

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:08 PM
  #730
Gallatin
A Banksy of Goonism
 
Gallatin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
Thx for posting this. It basically backups everything I said months ago about these sweetheart arena deals and accounting magic.

So either Broward county is lying or the billionaire owners of the Panthers... Tough one...

Hopefully Ragamuffin reads this *cough*
Holy Cow Batman! This is the very first real evidence to date that the NHL is making good money. Wow....

Gallatin is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:14 PM
  #731
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gallatin View Post
Holy Cow Batman! This is the very first real evidence to date that the NHL is making good money. Wow....
Anyone who owns their own business and has hired an accountant, even a decent one, knows the magic they can do with numbers. So as I was trying to say awhile back, please don't buy the BS from Bettman and the owners.

The players are aware they are hiding money, which is why they don't want to give in. But they have no real leverage. If the greedy pigs like Jacobs, etc want even more, there is only so much you can do as a player to fight back.

I was about to talk about common sense again... Caught myself....

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:17 PM
  #732
Gallatin
A Banksy of Goonism
 
Gallatin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 959
vCash: 500
You hate Bettman so much Jiggy (as do many) that I think you need to focus more on the owners.

It's the Owners he works directly for, and the Owners who want to to defeat Fehr & the Union. Lots of Rand type owners out there who think we are all a bunch of inferior worker bees.

Not that I will now cut Fehr a break, as he sucks too, but this brings my whole perspective on the conflict up for review.

Still think 50-50 linked revenue and the 5% contact rule is reasonable given the other leagues.

The rest of it though just sounds like an excuse to try and break the union now.

Gallatin is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:20 PM
  #733
Wes C Addle
Mookie Blaylock
 
Wes C Addle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Allentown, Pa
Country: United States
Posts: 1,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gallatin View Post
Holy Cow Batman! This is the very first real evidence to date that the NHL is making good money. Wow....
Hey Gallatin, I've seen you mention before that Economics is your field. It sure ain't mine. Serious question, what do you make of a report like that? Is that fairly legit?

Wes C Addle is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:19 PM
  #734
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gallatin View Post
You hate Bettman so much Jiggy (as do many) that I think you need to focus more on the owners.

It's the Owners he works directly for, and the Owners who want to to defeat Fehr & the Union. Lots of Rand type owners out there who think we are all a bunch of inferior worker bees.

Not that I will now cut Fehr a break, as he sucks too, but this brings my whole perspective on the conflict up for review.

Still think 50-50 linked revenue and the 5% contact rule is reasonable given the other leagues.

The rest of it though just sounds like an excuse to try and break the union now.
I used to actually be neutral on Bettman and defended him to the bashers. It got me to read extensively about his reign as commissioner and what I discovered made me cringe. The Spano thing was a huge eye opener for sure, but the rules he had passed to give him so much power is ridiculous. The list is quite extensive when you look at his poor decision making... No one is perfect, but he refuses to take accountability - ever. The Phoenix situation has been so poorly handled by Bettman, that it has become comical.

He has way too much power and he is a poor leader. He only knows one way to resolve a CBA dispute and we know what that is.

A good leader would find a way to resolve these disputes without losing an entire season, and 1600 games under his watch, all while embarrassing the hell out of this league. That is poor leadership, I'm sorry.

I definetly believe if they had another commissioner who was more level headed and understood that you protect the integrity of your league, the NHL would be much better off, not the laughingstock it has become.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:35 PM
  #735
Gallatin
A Banksy of Goonism
 
Gallatin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
I used to actually be neutral on Bettman and defended him to the bashers. It got me to read extensively about his reign as commissioner and what I discovered made me cringe. The Spano thing was a huge eye opener for sure, but the rules he had passed to give him so much power is ridiculous. The list is quite extensive when you look at his poor decision making... No one is perfect, but he refuses to take accountability - ever. The Phoenix situation has been so poorly handled by Bettman, that it has become comical.

He has way too much power and he is a poor leader. He only knows one way to resolve a CBA dispute and we know what that is.

A good leader would find a way to resolve these disputes without losing an entire season, and 1600 games under his watch, all while embarrassing the hell out of this league. That is poor leadership, I'm sorry.

I definetly believe if they had another commissioner who was more level headed and understood that you protect the integrity of your league, the NHL would be much better off, not the laughingstock it has become.
The NHL as laughingstock goes back into infinity dude. It was even worse when I started following the sport back in 1980.

Goodenow was a militant reactionary at the head of the PA in 2004. Losing a season then to get a cap was practically inevitable. And this time Bettman is up against Fehr, who might be just as bad.

Phoenix does look like a mess I grant you. What's the deal with Spano?

Gallatin is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:38 PM
  #736
Gallatin
A Banksy of Goonism
 
Gallatin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wes C Addle View Post
Hey Gallatin, I've seen you mention before that Economics is your field. It sure ain't mine. Serious question, what do you make of a report like that? Is that fairly legit?
You're going to have to give me some time on this one Wes, as reading an unfamiliar Auditors Report is going to be a challenge, probably take two reads to make sense of it.

Gallatin is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 03:32 PM
  #737
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gallatin View Post
The NHL as laughingstock goes back into infinity dude. It was even worse when I started following the sport back in 1980.
That's why you pay a man 8m to shed that label, not increase it tenfold.

Quote:
Goodenow was a militant reactionary at the head of the PA in 2004. Losing a season then to get a cap was practically inevitable. And this time Bettman is up against Fehr, who might be just as bad.
The NBA and NFL instituted cap systems without losing a season, and Upshaw made Fehr look like a *****cat. He had the NFL in court over and over and hounded them with litigation for yrs and the players strike in '87.

Tagliabue stepped into that god awful ****** mess in '89 and saw the league lose the Plan B case, then White's subsequent litigation the following year, but PT found a way to get a fair CBA drawn that included a cap, without missing a single game.

He walked into a completely ****ed up situation and turned it into a peaceful CBA that lasted for 15 yrs.

I also dislike Goodell, but he is a good leader. He made a big mistake with the refs and rectified it. However, Bettman refuses to take accountability or put his ego aside for the good of the league. Now he wants a two week break? He is an atrocious leader...

It's sad the NFL has had two good commisoners who get things done, while we suffer with the incompetence of Bettman.

Quote:
Phoenix does look like a mess I grant you. What's the deal with Spano?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Spano

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 03:34 PM
  #738
Ugene Malkin
Bück Dich Baby!
 
Ugene Malkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: Germany
Posts: 21,087
vCash: 500
Here's a hint.

While the organization may turn a profit how much money did the owners fork out in signing bonuses and many other ventures that don't show up on the organizations running costs. That will only show up under the actual owners personal financial.

People seem to forget that they use their own money to front these ventures.


That statement saying that the Panthers showed a profit of 117.4 over "14 SEASONS" is 8.3 average an easy number to get twisted around when all the parameters are not present all together.

Ya, he might be showing a profit of 8.3, but he poured 10.2 of his own money to cover costs, including players salaries, bonuses and so on.

They basically front up the money to cover the costs of the business.

I'm sure it could be told in a better way than I have.

Ugene Malkin is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 03:36 PM
  #739
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugene Malkin View Post
Here's a hint.

While the organization may turn a profit how much money did the owners fork out in signing bonuses and many other ventures that don't show up on the organizations running costs. That will only show up under the actual owners personal financial.

People seem to forget that they use their own money to front these ventures.


That statement saying that the Panthers showed a profit of 117.4 over "14 SEASONS" is 8.3 average an easy number to get twisted around when all the parameters are not present all together.

Ya, he might be showing a profit of 8.3, but he poured 10.2 of his own money to cover costs, including players salaries, bonuses and so on.

They basically front up the money to cover the costs of the business.

I'm sure it could be told in a better way than I have.
The NHL did away with true signing bonuses in this past CBA.

Don't get your point? And once again, no NHL team, no ultra profitable arena deal.

It's a simple concept and I wish people would stop making excuses for the owners.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 04:01 PM
  #740
Ugene Malkin
Bück Dich Baby!
 
Ugene Malkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: Germany
Posts: 21,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
The NHL did away with true signing bonuses in this past CBA.

Don't get your point? And once again, no NHL team, no ultra profitable arena deal.

It's a simple concept and I wish people would stop making excuses for the owners.
Those bonuses come straight out of the owners pockets. How do you account for the 52.0 that Shea Weber is receiving over four years as a signing bonus? Even though it counts against the cap that is not a true salary being paid. That comes straight out of the owners pockets. His actual salary for those four seasons are 1.0 but his cap hit is 7.857. 14.0 salary with 13.0 of it being a signing bonus. They had to pay him this signing bonus even though there's a lockout going on.

It can't be hard to figure out that the way the owners do their business is more complicated than just A + B = profit. There's A + B - C = ?


Last edited by Ugene Malkin: 11-16-2012 at 04:14 PM.
Ugene Malkin is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 04:13 PM
  #741
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugene Malkin View Post
Those bonuses come straight out of the owners pockets. How do you account for the 26.0 that Shea Weber is receiving over four years as a signing bonus? Even though it counts against the cap that is not a true salary being paid. That comes straight out of the owners pockets. His actual salary for those four seasons are 1.0 but his cap hit is 7.857. 14.0 salary with 13.0 of it being a signing bonus. They had to pay him this signing bonus even though there's a lockout going on.

It can't be hard to figure out that the way the owners do their business is more complicated than just A + B = profit. There's A + B - C = ?
That is salary. The NHL doesn't allow true signing bonuses for most contracts. So teams front load deals and call them signing bonuses. It's just a trick to get around the CBA.

Do you actually think the money calls to handle the frontloading of his contract aren't repaid to their investors? That all is accrued on the hockey side for write offs.

Rookie and 35+ bonuses are all accrued on the hockey side and factored into hockey related expenses.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 04:49 PM
  #742
Ugene Malkin
Bück Dich Baby!
 
Ugene Malkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: Germany
Posts: 21,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
That is salary. The NHL doesn't allow true signing bonuses for most contracts. So teams front load deals and call them signing bonuses. It's just a trick to get around the CBA.

Do you actually think the money calls to handle the frontloading of his contract aren't repaid to their investors? That all is accrued on the hockey side for write offs.

Rookie and 35+ bonuses are all accrued on the hockey side and factored into hockey related expenses.
No, what I'm saying is those investors front up the money to the various reasons, and when they do get settled up with from the profits, making them not profits at all because, they're only recouping their initial investment. Plus sometimes they don't even recoup their investment, obviously. So while you look at set numbers that seem profit, to the owner he has another additional number added to the equation that says one of the three of profit/broke even/loss.

You're basically saying the owners don't front the money, but they do. Not all NHL teams have that kind of money laying around to payout bonuses.

Ugene Malkin is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 05:02 PM
  #743
LECROSKIN
Registered User
 
LECROSKIN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: PLAYA'S CLUB
Country: United States
Posts: 304
vCash: 500
so a 2 week break from today? As in 14 days? As in Nov 30th? As in all of Dec games cancelled?


Last edited by ColePens: 11-16-2012 at 05:53 PM.
LECROSKIN is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 05:53 PM
  #744
Darth Vitale
Moderator
Transitional Period
 
Darth Vitale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Fangorn
Country: United States
Posts: 25,407
vCash: 500
This sticks out like a sore thumb:

Quote:
Hockey-related revenue is defined in such a way so as to maximize the appearance of losses on the hockey side
I for one believe every word of that. Makes perfect sense.

Darth Vitale is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 06:07 PM
  #745
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugene Malkin View Post
No, what I'm saying is those investors front up the money to the various reasons, and when they do get settled up with from the profits, making them not profits at all because, they're only recouping their initial investment. Plus sometimes they don't even recoup their investment, obviously. So while you look at set numbers that seem profit, to the owner he has another additional number added to the equation that says one of the three of profit/broke even/loss.

You're basically saying the owners don't front the money, but they do. Not all NHL teams have that kind of money laying around to payout bonuses.
Ya I see the point you were trying to make, but as soon as the season starts, their investors will be first in line to recoup their money.

The last thing you ever want to do is leave your investors hanging. That is bad for business.

Even if you had a poorly run team that cleared all expenses before they paid back their investors, the percentage of max salary deals in the first 2-3 yrs make up such a minimal amount of NHL contracts, that it honestly isn't something you could even point to as the reason owners are "losing" money.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 07:08 PM
  #746
Gooch
Registered User
 
Gooch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Coeur d'Alene Idaho
Country: United States
Posts: 13,941
vCash: 500
The first thing that stood out to me in that report is that it's over a 14 year period of time and is seemingly a paltry amount of money profited during that period. What it doesnt show you is how much was profit and loss season by season. They couldve earned more profits when the salary cap/floor was more manageable but might be losing money more recently as the floor has grown to the level the original cap was when the first CBA was signed.

I am of the belief that an owner due to them fronting the money, and assuming the risks should be entitled to greater rewards. That being said, there are a few players (employees) who make more than this owner per year if you want to average that profit out per year.

I don't know, I need to see more data and I am especially curious of the break down each year. Also whether the owner counts himself as an employee and cuts himself a salary which is factored into that as a running cost.

Gooch is online now  
Old
11-16-2012, 07:10 PM
  #747
Homeland Security
Mod Supervisor
#beLIeve
 
Homeland Security's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NY/FL
Country: United States
Posts: 14,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wes C Addle View Post
A good piece on the financial state of the Florida Panthers for anyone that's interested.

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...at-lose-money/
Interesting read.

__________________
Homeland Security is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 07:19 PM
  #748
eXile59
Shirts on.
 
eXile59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 16,168
vCash: 500
Fehr's done a good job at firing up the Crosby & Toews of the world but as this drags on he's going to lose some of the lower tier guys. Eventually Crosby & Toews will realize that Fehr would sit by & watch two or three seasons pass & wouldn't lose sleep over it. He's in it for his legacy not theirs.

eXile59 is online now  
Old
11-16-2012, 08:24 PM
  #749
Gooch
Registered User
 
Gooch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Coeur d'Alene Idaho
Country: United States
Posts: 13,941
vCash: 500
One thing I noticed from reading that article and the other one it linked to. That profit was factoring in Arena related revenue and basically citing it as the main reason for the profit. Meaning that the actual owning of the hockey team isnt profitable, it's the arena deals and the money that comes through that which is the bread earner.

I don't really see how this gives any sort of legitimacy from the players side, as they are not or should not be arguing over the personal wealth of the owners but over the ability of the team itself to generate money via it's hockey team. If the hockey team itself is not generating a profit or it's a very small one and a team has to rely on a sweet heart arena deal to offset that I don't see how that somehow means there is no legitimacy to the owners side of this issue.

Gooch is online now  
Old
11-16-2012, 08:58 PM
  #750
Wes C Addle
Mookie Blaylock
 
Wes C Addle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Allentown, Pa
Country: United States
Posts: 1,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooch View Post
One thing I noticed from reading that article and the other one it linked to. That profit was factoring in Arena related revenue and basically citing it as the main reason for the profit. Meaning that the actual owning of the hockey team isnt profitable, it's the arena deals and the money that comes through that which is the bread earner.

I don't really see how this gives any sort of legitimacy from the players side, as they are not or should not be arguing over the personal wealth of the owners but over the ability of the team itself to generate money via it's hockey team. If the hockey team itself is not generating a profit or it's a very small one and a team has to rely on a sweet heart arena deal to offset that I don't see how that somehow means there is no legitimacy to the owners side of this issue.
I think one of the main arguments was this section of the article

Quote:
2. Hockey-related revenue is defined in such a way so as to maximize the appearance of losses on the hockey side. I expected to see that the Panthers were making good money on their arena deal; I was surprised to find that what was far and away their worst fiscal year coincided with the NHL lockout. If the Panthers were losing money but the arena business was profitable, we would not expect to see a major drop in SSE revenue in 2005: instead we saw a significant dip.; (Note: judging by the email commentary I’ve received, this point is being missed by many readers. If the Panthers were acting as a drag on revenue, the 2005 lockout year should have been quite profitable for SSE; instead it was easily their worst fiscal year of the decade – JW.)
If I'm understanding the article correctly, during the lockout season, they had their worst financial year. Which, I believe the author is suggesting is curious if the assumption is that hockey is not profitable. That aspect seems to contradict itself.

Wes C Addle 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 07:04 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.