HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Boston Bruins
Notices

2012 CBA Discussion Part IV (Lockout talk here)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-16-2012, 06:00 PM
  #226
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Peoria, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
but this has a very real effect on the argument. if the owners cant make money with the tax handouts then how on earth can they survive if those tax handouts get cut off?

Any handouts are usually given to attract or keep teams and then they are done Who is being subsidized each year beside Phoenix? How much? How much is the revenue and jobs gain vs what they give out?

and asap step... get the taxpayers off the hook

They will never be off the hook. Owners will always ask for money no matter what they pay the players. Other businesses ask for money. Voters get to vote on whether to give that money. Cities and in turn taxpayers benefit from bringing teams or businesses, jobs and revenues to their city. I think they are helped more than they lose and it doesn't matter anyway.

I know this is important to you but honestly answer this. Do you think owners will stop asking for money if they are all profitable? I think the answer is a resounding no. They are always going to ask for money. It doesn't even matter if it helps or hurts taxpayers. Owners will always ask for money. It is up to the taxpayers to say yes or no. It has nothing to do with the players at all. Making 90%, 50% or 10%.


i guess some of your arguments though... dont follow common sense business practices. there is something to be said about spending money to make money that you give no creedence to at all. there is also something about us living in a democracy and not a cummunist state that makes revenue sharing a bitter pill to swallow.

I've given credence to spending money to make money. But there is no direct correlation to more profits or winning. You still have to spend wisely and within your budget or a reasonable amount of it. You still have to maintain a reasonable amount of debt. Maybe eventually the plan will work but you run out of money before you can get there. There are too many teams not spending wisely and spending well outside their budget which will also affect their franchise value negatively.

your solution might work if eveyone was willing to agree to it... but i take them for their word that they arent willing.

Well I don't think anyone has proposed my solution to both sides yet. I bet if you took it to all the players and all the owners and took a vote it would be approved maybe with some minor tweaks as I obviously don't have every issue addressed. I am 100% positive that it works for the owners both on money and competitiveness. I know it isn't exactly what the players want but it certainly works for them too.

I mean the sides are actually pretty close on most issues. My offer is a compromise on the issues. How much is the final agreement going to differ from my offer? Not much. Some tweaks - one side will hold firm on an issue while giving up another and boom...an agreement.


so that brings us back to their solution... and the players... and which one has any chance in hell of working

Since they are very close on money they both will work or neither will work. I think they both will work and mine which is a compromise will work. The problem is the owners aren't giving squat to the players for dropping from 57% to 50%. They not only want that but all major contract issues as well. I wouldn't sign if I was a player either. They will get a better offer and this will get settled.

the owners do have lots of options... and are willing to do a lockout. the players have no options but might be willign to accept a lockout???

so ultimately we might get a lockout... at some point the owners will win this fight. I wish us fans werent caught in the damage in the meantime... and taxpayers are getting screwed cause we have no voice at the table
The owners will win. They always win. They hold the cards and they are also getting TV money this year. It isn't really a fair fight but that doesn't mean the players just have to give in because fans want to see hockey. They want to get a fair deal and try to end these type of takeaway negotiations. I would like to see what would happen if the players held a strike before the playoffs. Think the owners might have given in on some issues?

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 06:15 PM
  #227
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Peoria, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
OOG - another couple of questions for you.

In these Profit & Loss numbers is an owner's salary included in there? i.e. If Team A shows a $3M loss but the owner got paid $5M then they didn't lose money.

Edit - Other questions were answered.


Last edited by sjaustin77: 11-16-2012 at 11:48 PM.
sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 06:19 PM
  #228
ranold26
Get off my rink!
 
ranold26's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,144
vCash: 500

When I think of this mess, this is what Gary and Co. think of the players.

ranold26 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 06:26 PM
  #229
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Peoria, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranold26 View Post

When I think of this mess, this is what Gary and Co. think of the players.
Metallica!!

Well they are but not 700 at a time.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 07:16 PM
  #230
Spooner st
Registered User
 
Spooner st's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,451
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
OOG - another couple of questions for you.

In these Profit & Loss numbers is an owner's salary included in there? i.e. If Team A shows a $3M loss but the owner got paid $5M then they didn't lose money.

Why are there only lockouts - never strikes and only at the end of the CBA? Are there rules in place that prevents lockouts and strikes during a CBA? Can players never strike again to gain leverage?

Possibly answered above if not allowed but if things were so bad why haven't owners locked out the players before now?

Spooner st is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 07:52 PM
  #231
Topshelf8188
Boston Strong
 
Topshelf8188's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: RI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spooner st View Post
An absolutely riveting contribution. Applause.

Topshelf8188 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 07:59 PM
  #232
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Peoria, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spooner st View Post
Sorry I'm not part of any union. Haven't read the full CBA and don't have access to what is in the owner's P&L numbers.

Please enlighten me with your genius all knowing mind.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 09:18 PM
  #233
Pie O My
Registered User
 
Pie O My's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Shawmut Center
Country: Armenia
Posts: 6,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
Sorry I'm not part of any union. Haven't read the full CBA and don't have access to what is in the owner's P&L numbers.

Please enlighten me with your genius all knowing mind.
I'm guessing he's referring to this - "if things were so bad why haven't owners locked out the players before now?"

I'll be more charitable than Spooner and just assume you had a brain fart. No biggie, I have them all the time.

Pie O My is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 09:42 PM
  #234
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Peoria, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Well I thought it was pretty obvious that I meant this CBA but whatever. They could have bolded the line or said more than a facepalm. I know full well Bettman is king of the lockout.

Here is the agreement on Term from the CBA -

(a) This Agreement is effective retroactive to September 16, 2004 (the “Effective Date”), and shall remain in full force and effect until midnight New York time on September 15, 2011, and shall remain in effect from year to year thereafter unless and until either party shall deliver to the other a written notice of termination of this Agreement at least 120 days prior to September 15, 2011 or not less than a like period in any year thereafter.

So I thought maybe the owners had the chance to lock them out last year but I guess not. The agreement looks like it takes out any chance for the players to strike so I'm wondering how players have gone on strike before? Don't the owners have enough leverage already? Now it is in the contract that players can't strike? Doesn't seem a fair system at all and you can see why the players have to wait for a better deal.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 11:26 PM
  #235
thegodfather
Registered User
 
thegodfather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
OOG - another couple of questions for you.

In these Profit & Loss numbers is an owner's salary included in there? i.e. If Team A shows a $3M loss but the owner got paid $5M then they didn't lose money.

Why are there only lockouts - never strikes and only at the end of the CBA? Are there rules in place that prevents lockouts and strikes during a CBA? Can players never strike again to gain leverage?

Possibly answered above if not allowed but if things were so bad why haven't owners locked out the players before now?

It's a binding CBA both parties agreed too so that's why you don't see lockouts or strikes during it.

To my knowledge it would be against the law.

thegodfather is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 11:44 PM
  #236
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Peoria, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegodfather View Post
It's a binding CBA both parties agreed too so that's why you don't see lockouts or strikes during it.

To my knowledge it would be against the law.
That is what I figured. Thanks for confirming.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 12:21 AM
  #237
Dom - OHL
http://ohlwriters.co
 
Dom - OHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,469
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dom - OHL
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
OOG - another couple of questions for you.

In these Profit & Loss numbers is an owner's salary included in there? i.e. If Team A shows a $3M loss but the owner got paid $5M then they didn't lose money.

Yes. All Financial statements are done by 3rd party accountants approved by the league and the NHLPA. The NHLPA has to sign off on it before they are considered final. And even though they agreed to the 3rd party accountants, they have their own accountants dissect them before giving that final stamp of approval

Why are there only lockouts - never strikes and only at the end of the CBA? Are there rules in place that prevents lockouts and strikes during a CBA? Can players never strike again to gain leverage?

The last CBA didn't allow for any strike or lockout during the life of the CBA, They had to wait until the CBA expired. It's the number one reason why the league wanted negotiations to begin last season and the number one reason the owners didn't want to play this year while they negotiated - because no work stoppage either way was allowed. Can you imagine them playing right now under this scenario and May comes around with no agreement at playoff time? More than likely you'd have a strike because players don't get paid then and owners make their most money. The way the NHL's paychecks are done - Sept thru April, you will never see a strike by the players. That's when they get paid. If anything, you'll see them strike before the playoffs, when they don't get paid and the owners make the bulk of their $$. Which is why its in the CBA - No strike, no lockout provision.

Possibly answered above if not allowed but if things were so bad why haven't owners locked out the players before now?
Back to your other questions. You have to stop thinking of this as a whole and begin to look at it as 30 franchises. I'll use the same thing I did with MMB 3 threads ago that seemed to change his opinion somewhat on the situation.

Think of Tim Horton's. The NHL is the same way. The NHL is run by the 30 owners, each owning their own franchise. Tim Horton's is the same way. The difference is, like any franchise operation, you don't rob one franchise to pay another. Each and every franchise has to be able to turn a profit. If it doesn't, they find a way to do it, or they move it, or shut it down. In sports, they've gotten away from that a bit and come up with revenue sharing. Good on the owners. They've gotten away from the typical franchise agreements. Not just the NHL, but in all major sports. But each individual franchise has to be self sustaining, or it doesn't work. The League (or Tim Horton's) as a whole shows profitability, but not every franchise is.

As for Forbes, like I said, they are pretty close. But when your talking about $3.3 billion in revenue, $2 or $3 million here or there isn't a lot of money per season is it? Over the life of the CBA, still not a lot when you consider the revenue that came in. Re-do the numbers of those teams on the cusp with a $2 or $3 million difference and see what you come up with.

As for the proposals that put $250 million back in the hands of the owners. I'm not denying that it is fact. It does. Look at it this way: How much does it put in the hands of the 30 franchises? It's not split equally 30 ways when it's done. The majority of that money goes back to the top 5 teams that produce revenue. I haven't seen any formula proposed where it's split evenly. Again, you have to stop thinking as a whole, it has to work for all 30 franchises.

I didn't have time earlier today to explain where I think the biggest problem was with the expired CBA so I don't think it was very clear (and can't look up exact numbers so bare with me here)

The original cap floor started as 55% (?) of the cap and as revenues rose it turned into $16 million (?) below the cap. But that's how it was originally negotiated so it is what it is.

The original players share started at 54% and rose to 57% as revenues reached a certain threshold. Again, that's what was negotiated and it is what it is. But neither side expected revenues to grow as they did, certainly not the league or we wouldn't have had a 57-43 split.

Here's a little project for you: Go back to the beginning of the CBA (use Forbes) and re-calculate everything using the 54% players share and a cap floor of 55% (?) of the cap thru the complete term of the CBA - and you can even leave out revenue sharing - and you'll be surprised at how many teams you don't find in the red

As for numbers I've seen, I have an acquaintance at the NHLPA (cant remember off hand whether it was Scotto or doubleminor I shared some of the info with just so there'd be no questions asked - or maybe it was DKH). In short, I don't want to burn any bridges, which is why when something is told to me in confidence, it stays that way. I've also learned that you don't share it privately either. Last time I did that, it was all of 5 minutes before it got posted here on HF and I had to get mods to delete every post that directly related to it.

I'm not asking that you or anyone else trust me. Honestly, it doesn't matter to me. What I am saying is that it's hard for the average person to get the facts. And to use statistics that are already known to not be 100% accurate not only clouds your judgement, but also the judgement of everyone reading it. And I know that it may be the only information readily available to you, but if we already know it not to be entirely accurate, then is it not better to leave it alone and discuss the facts that are available?

Personally, right now, I don't care whether they settle or not - only that they get it right this time, because the last time, they sure as hell didn't (both sides). With a hockey game last night, another tonight, another Saturday and a double header on Sunday, I have enough hockey to keep me on the road until June. And in most cases, more entertaining than the NHL.

On another note, if you have time - read the CBA on the expenses the NHL is responsible for. There's only about 40 pages of it. I think you'll be quite surprised. $3000.00 a month mortgage expense? WOW

Dom - OHL is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 02:19 AM
  #238
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Peoria, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
Back to your other questions. You have to stop thinking of this as a whole and begin to look at it as 30 franchises. I'll use the same thing I did with MMB 3 threads ago that seemed to change his opinion somewhat on the situation.

Think of Tim Horton's. The NHL is the same way. The NHL is run by the 30 owners, each owning their own franchise. Tim Horton's is the same way. The difference is, like any franchise operation, you don't rob one franchise to pay another. Each and every franchise has to be able to turn a profit. If it doesn't, they find a way to do it, or they move it, or shut it down. In sports, they've gotten away from that a bit and come up with revenue sharing. Good on the owners. They've gotten away from the typical franchise agreements. Not just the NHL, but in all major sports. But each individual franchise has to be self sustaining, or it doesn't work. The League (or Tim Horton's) as a whole shows profitability, but not every franchise is.

As for Forbes, like I said, they are pretty close. But when your talking about $3.3 billion in revenue, $2 or $3 million here or there isn't a lot of money per season is it? Over the life of the CBA, still not a lot when you consider the revenue that came in. Re-do the numbers of those teams on the cusp with a $2 or $3 million difference and see what you come up with.

2 or 3 million less for every team? I will when I get time.

As for the proposals that put $250 million back in the hands of the owners. I'm not denying that it is fact. It does. Look at it this way: How much does it put in the hands of the 30 franchises? It's not split equally 30 ways when it's done. The majority of that money goes back to the top 5 teams that produce revenue. I haven't seen any formula proposed where it's split evenly. Again, you have to stop thinking as a whole, it has to work for all 30 franchises.
For the owner's salary I meant in there as an expense. You said yes which based on the way I meant the question the owners aren't losing what they (Forbes) show. I'm not sure that is what you meant. Let me ask a little different to clarify. Team A shows a $3M loss. In that $3M is an expense for $5M in owners salary through the year. So it looks like the team lost $3M but the owner made $5M. The team actually made $2M.

I'll break this first part out and see if I have time to get to your project for me on the rest later. I don't know what each team shared for revenue so I don't know if I can do exactly what you want at least on that aspect. I don't question your connections or numbers and respect the privacy. I didn't want to know them privately only if you could openly share.

I have looked at each franchise. How and why the make or lose money along with the whole. I understand the Horton's analogy; of course sports are a lot different as they are more of a partnership. I don't think different Horton's owners are sharing revenue or make money because of the other one.

I'm not sure I get the ~$250M going mostly to the rich owners. If they cut back to 50% wouldn't each teams salary be cut back based on what they are paying out? I actually have a spreadsheet of that someplace. While that will save the ones who spend more the most money initially, won't the increased revenue sharing come out of those teams so the poor teams end up benefiting the most?

Let's keep this simple and say there are 4 teams in the league. Toronto, Montreal, Phoenix and Islanders. New cut at 50/50, leave out make whole for a minute. The top spenders (Mon & Tor) average cap at 65M will save about $8.5M. Phoenix and the Islanders average spending of $50M will save $6.5M. So they save $2M less but then Tor & Mon have to share most of their increased earnings. If they are transferring $5M each; now Phoenix & NY are $11.5M better total than at 57% under the old CBA. Toronto and Montreal are only $3.5M better off.

That is how I understand it. Each team is better off but the poor teams actually end up with more. I have run the numbers even without shifting additional revenue sharing and there were only a couple of teams that wouldn't have covered their income loss. Only Phoenix and Columbus showed more than $8.5M Income loss. With the floor at $48.3 last year every team saves at least ~$6.3M. Increased revenue sharing would transfer from the rich owners to cover the rest. That is with spending how they have with many obviously overbudget.

I also believe Isles & NJ were 2 teams that weren't allowed to get revenue sharing in the last CBA. I think they are changing some of those restrictions so more teams will be able to be helped.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 03:28 AM
  #239
Dom - OHL
http://ohlwriters.co
 
Dom - OHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,469
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dom - OHL
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
For the owner's salary I meant in there as an expense. You said yes which based on the way I meant the question the owners aren't losing what they (Forbes) show. I'm not sure that is what you meant. Let me ask a little different to clarify. Team A shows a $3M loss. In that $3M is an expense for $5M in owners salary through the year. So it looks like the team lost $3M but the owner made $5M. The team actually made $2M.

First off, yes some owners draw a salary, and why wouldn't they? In most cases they are CEO's or presidents of their teams and are entitled to draw a salary. But your question is dealing in an IF for example, IF they draw a $5 million salary and show a loss of $3 million..... I can't put it any other way then : trying to draw a conclusion without all the facts. I think you are trying to paint a picture that isn't entirely true. No NHL owner (CEO) is drawing a salary that is any different than any CEO of any major North American Corporation. There is no attempt to hide expenses that the NHLPA isn't aware of. Remember, they sign off on it. Now, whether we agree on whether an owner (CEO) is entitled to draw a salary, well that's a different argument.


I'm not sure I get the ~$250M going mostly to the rich owners. If they cut back to 50% wouldn't each teams salary be cut back based on what they are paying out? I actually have a spreadsheet of that someplace. While that will save the ones who spend more the most money initially, won't the increased revenue sharing come out of those teams so the poor teams end up benefiting the most?

The only reason I brought this up is because earlier you said somewhere the savings projected in your proposal divided by 30 owners: its not equally divided 30 ways, that's my whole point. And this is the nitty gritty of the CBA negotiations. It has to work for all 30 teams not as a whole. It'll take a lot of work to figure out what each team would get and how that effects their bottom line. Something I don't have time for, but one thing is certain, it's not equal
I just finished some write up I have to do and got an early rise before I hit the road again, but just wanted to throw one more thing out there and its franchise values, which seems to come up a lot.

FV are just an arbitrary number, a paper number if you will. The owners gain nothing from it until they sell. The problem is, trying to find a potential owner that is willing to pay the said value. In 2005 the NHL was lined up with potential owners wanting an existing franchise or expansion. Why? Because they had cost certainty with the CBA. While the CBA did a lot of what it was intended to do, it failed on that part which is why the league is having a hard time finding owners now. So the Bruins value of $325 million is only true if I'm willing to pay that. If I bought them at $300 million, isn't that their actual value because that's all JJ could get for it? Isn't that the new value of the franchise?

Let me use a personal example: The last house I owned before this one i purchased for $169,900. It was appraised at $209,900 when I put it on the market. For various reasons, the best offer I got was $176,900. And for various reasons sold it at that price. So is the value now $176,900 or $209,900 ? The new owners wouldn't be able to get that $209,900 if they tried to sell either so the actual value is what you get for it when it's sold. Works the same way for an NHL franchise.

And as for the owners actual out of pocket expense to purchase a team: These owners don't usually come in and pay out of pocket. Its stupid to do so. They finance it to protect their own personal property. The team has to be self sustaining, without constantly putting in personal wealth. Obviously as fans we want them to. But it's not how business works.

Again with a personal example: Several years ago I purchased 3 businesses with total annual sales of $10 million. Under the advice of lawyers and accountants, I formed two legal corporations (separate entities under the law from myself). My own personal investment was $8000.00 and under the law, if those business failed, none of my personal cash, property, my wife, son, parents - you name it, couldn't have legal action brought up against them in a civil suit. NHL owners operate the same way - the team has to sustain itself without personal wealth/property being effected.

Could Rogers/Bell Media have afforded to pay $1.1 Billion in cash to buy MLSE and the Leafs? Darn right they could have. 10 times. Did they? No, because if the disastrous happened, they'd be out their personal wealth. Sometimes they'll pay a little more interest (actually - all the time ) in order to protect themselves, but it still boils down to one thing, MLSE has to make enough money to cover all the expenses.

Doug McLean talked today about when he was in the front office of the Red Wings. he mentioned that Paul Coffey used 18 pair of skates - IN ONE GAME - and remembers Mike Illitch calling him questioning the bill he just got. While on air, he got a text from a former counterpart now with the Oilers saying it was 27 pair of skates - again, in one game.

See, not all players get lucrative endorsement deals in which, skates, sticks, etc are provided to them. Seriously, take the time to read the expenses the owners are responsible for in the CBA, you'll be shocked.

And finally, speaking of endorsements, some players make a ton of money because the NHL exists. Would Crosby get a Gatorade endorsement if he was playing in the KHL instead of the NHL ? probably, but nowhere near the value it is now because the NHL gives him the exposure he couldn't get any place else.

Okay, so Crosby is a big name, but not exclusive to him. See the thread with the Lucic commercial? Would Lucic be a part of that commercial if not for the NHL? How about Shawn Thornton? The list goes on and on. The NHL not only allows them to make money from playing hockey, but allows them to make money from other ventures, not because they play hockey, but because they play NHL hockey - NHL hockey made possible by NHL owners.

And this next part isn't directed at you:

So forgive me for not giving a rats ass if the NHL as a whole makes a profit - and forgive me for wanting all 30 NHL owners to turn a profit - it is their right to want to and to do so.

Dom - OHL is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 06:42 AM
  #240
sooshii
Believe in Boston
 
sooshii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Philly burbs
Country: United States
Posts: 9,922
vCash: 500
God help me, I may have found a reason to root for the flyers

Quote:
To be sure, Snider and Co. were not against the lockout. Some in the media pegged the Flyers during this process as "middlers," or those that wanted to play but were interested in results.

That all has changed. On Friday, multiple sources indicated Snider's "strong discontent" for Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs, a big-market owner who has been one of the lockout's ringleaders.

Despite their on-ice rivalry, there seems to be some thinking that the Flyers are interested in teaming up with the midmarket but high-revenue Pittsburgh Penguins to sway more governors toward a swift resolution. The Rangers are also viewed as anti-lockout.
Can't quote it all, worth a read:
Is Flyers' Snider helping thaw NHL talks?

(Thanks, Gorskic)

sooshii is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 06:52 AM
  #241
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 12,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
I just finished some write up I have to do and got an early rise before I hit the road again, but just wanted to throw one more thing out there and its franchise values, which seems to come up a lot.

FV are just an arbitrary number, a paper number if you will. The owners gain nothing from it until they sell. The problem is, trying to find a potential owner that is willing to pay the said value. In 2005 the NHL was lined up with potential owners wanting an existing franchise or expansion. Why? Because they had cost certainty with the CBA. While the CBA did a lot of what it was intended to do, it failed on that part which is why the league is having a hard time finding owners now. So the Bruins value of $325 million is only true if I'm willing to pay that. If I bought them at $300 million, isn't that their actual value because that's all JJ could get for it? Isn't that the new value of the franchise?

Let me use a personal example: The last house I owned before this one i purchased for $169,900. It was appraised at $209,900 when I put it on the market. For various reasons, the best offer I got was $176,900. And for various reasons sold it at that price. So is the value now $176,900 or $209,900 ? The new owners wouldn't be able to get that $209,900 if they tried to sell either so the actual value is what you get for it when it's sold. Works the same way for an NHL franchise.

And as for the owners actual out of pocket expense to purchase a team: These owners don't usually come in and pay out of pocket. Its stupid to do so. They finance it to protect their own personal property. The team has to be self sustaining, without constantly putting in personal wealth. Obviously as fans we want them to. But it's not how business works.

Again with a personal example: Several years ago I purchased 3 businesses with total annual sales of $10 million. Under the advice of lawyers and accountants, I formed two legal corporations (separate entities under the law from myself). My own personal investment was $8000.00 and under the law, if those business failed, none of my personal cash, property, my wife, son, parents - you name it, couldn't have legal action brought up against them in a civil suit. NHL owners operate the same way - the team has to sustain itself without personal wealth/property being effected.

Could Rogers/Bell Media have afforded to pay $1.1 Billion in cash to buy MLSE and the Leafs? Darn right they could have. 10 times. Did they? No, because if the disastrous happened, they'd be out their personal wealth. Sometimes they'll pay a little more interest (actually - all the time ) in order to protect themselves, but it still boils down to one thing, MLSE has to make enough money to cover all the expenses.

Doug McLean talked today about when he was in the front office of the Red Wings. he mentioned that Paul Coffey used 18 pair of skates - IN ONE GAME - and remembers Mike Illitch calling him questioning the bill he just got. While on air, he got a text from a former counterpart now with the Oilers saying it was 27 pair of skates - again, in one game.

See, not all players get lucrative endorsement deals in which, skates, sticks, etc are provided to them. Seriously, take the time to read the expenses the owners are responsible for in the CBA, you'll be shocked.

And finally, speaking of endorsements, some players make a ton of money because the NHL exists. Would Crosby get a Gatorade endorsement if he was playing in the KHL instead of the NHL ? probably, but nowhere near the value it is now because the NHL gives him the exposure he couldn't get any place else.

Okay, so Crosby is a big name, but not exclusive to him. See the thread with the Lucic commercial? Would Lucic be a part of that commercial if not for the NHL? How about Shawn Thornton? The list goes on and on. The NHL not only allows them to make money from playing hockey, but allows them to make money from other ventures, not because they play hockey, but because they play NHL hockey - NHL hockey made possible by NHL owners.

And this next part isn't directed at you:

So forgive me for not giving a rats ass if the NHL as a whole makes a profit - and forgive me for wanting all 30 NHL owners to turn a profit - it is their right to want to and to do so.
Good stuff oog.

Why aren't all the numbers public (all salaries and expenses)?

JMiller is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 08:00 AM
  #242
Ratty
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Rive Gauche
Posts: 5,630
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sooshii View Post
God help me, I may have found a reason to root for the flyers



Can't quote it all, worth a read:
Is Flyers' Snider helping thaw NHL talks?

(Thanks, Gorskic)
This is not good for the NHL. And, its fodder for the P.A. No doubt, the Fehr brothers are touting this report to potential defectors in his ranks as evidence that staying the course is the best strategy at this point. I haven't seen any reports that players are starting to bend. But, as time rolls on, and more paychecks are missed, the players could lose some solidarity, especially the tier II guys like McQuaid, Thornton, Campbell.

Ratty is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 08:16 AM
  #243
Dom - OHL
http://ohlwriters.co
 
Dom - OHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,469
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dom - OHL
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
Good stuff oog.

Why aren't all the numbers public (all salaries and expenses)?
They aren't publicly traded companies, so they don't have to make them public.

I know JJ has taken some heat previously in the earlier threads for "hiding money" and using accounting practices to do so. Stayed away from it for the most part. But to the average person, it may seem that way, to the business savvy person, its just good business - it really has nothing to do with hiding money.

For example, If I were to buy the Bruins I'd form two corporations - call them A and B. A would buy the Bruins, B would buy TD Garden (which is something similar to what JJ has done). Charging myself rent of the Garden isn't a way of hiding funds. It's simply protecting my business.

How? In two ways:

1) If for some reason the Bruins were to go bankrupt (company A) then the TD Garden couldn't be touched legally (Company B) Yes, owned by the same person, but two separate entities. One has nothing to do with the other.

2) If I wanted to sell the Bruins later on, but hold onto the TD Garden, the new owner simply buys Company A, or the assets of company A while Company B still maintains ownership of the TD Garden.

I go back to my own personal experience and why I formed two companies to buy three businesses. One was financially stable, the other two borderline. Company A bought the stable one, company B the other two. If something happened to Company B, creditors couldn't touch Company A.

I know we all like a great conspiracy theory, and I'm not saying its all rosie, but sometimes we take it to far

Dom - OHL is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 08:30 AM
  #244
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 12,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
They aren't publicly traded companies, so they don't have to make them public.

I know JJ has taken some heat previously in the earlier threads for "hiding money" and using accounting practices to do so. Stayed away from it for the most part. But to the average person, it may seem that way, to the business savvy person, its just good business - it really has nothing to do with hiding money.

For example, If I were to buy the Bruins I'd form two corporations - call them A and B. A would buy the Bruins, B would buy TD Garden (which is something similar to what JJ has done). Charging myself rent of the Garden isn't a way of hiding funds. It's simply protecting my business.

How? In two ways:

1) If for some reason the Bruins were to go bankrupt (company A) then the TD Garden couldn't be touched legally (Company B) Yes, owned by the same person, but two separate entities. One has nothing to do with the other.

2) If I wanted to sell the Bruins later on, but hold onto the TD Garden, the new owner simply buys Company A, or the assets of company A while Company B still maintains ownership of the TD Garden.

I go back to my own personal experience and why I formed two companies to buy three businesses. One was financially stable, the other two borderline. Company A bought the stable one, company B the other two. If something happened to Company B, creditors couldn't touch Company A.

I know we all like a great conspiracy theory, and I'm not saying its all rosie, but sometimes we take it to far
Absolutely makes business sense - but it leaves the public with asymmetrical information- we all know the ins and outs of every rookie contract but have to just take jj's word for it that he's struggling to keep the franchise afloat. Conspiracy theories always follow a lack of info and there is good reason for jj to hide as much money as he can going into these negotiations. Does the nhlpa have access to all the financial numbers that the general public does not (because they are not public companies)?

General side note- one of the overlooked benefits of unions is that all contracts are public, makes for a more comfortable work environment and helps avert potential corruption.

JMiller is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 08:56 AM
  #245
Schmautzie
Dave est magané
 
Schmautzie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Greater Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 1,636
vCash: 500
Flyers Snider fed up with lockout

From Haggs' Twitter:

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/...HL_talks_.html

I've read about Mr Snider's love of the game before. If you love the game, you want to get a fair deal done and play!


Last edited by Schmautzie: 11-17-2012 at 08:59 AM. Reason: .
Schmautzie is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 09:14 AM
  #246
Rumpy
Registered User
 
Rumpy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmautzie View Post
From Haggs' Twitter:

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/...HL_talks_.html

I've read about Mr Snider's love of the game before. If you love the game, you want to get a fair deal done and play!
Hope he gets fined 2 Mil what a dumb ass!

Rumpy is online now  
Old
11-17-2012, 09:52 AM
  #247
EverettMike
Registered User
 
EverettMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Everett, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 18,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpy View Post
Hope he gets fined 2 Mil what a dumb ass!
I am not smart enough to know if this post is sarcastic or not.

EverettMike is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 10:00 AM
  #248
Artemis
Took the red pill
 
Artemis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: United States
Posts: 16,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpy View Post
Hope he gets fined 2 Mil what a dumb ass!
Fined? For what? He's not quoted in that story. He hasn't said a word to the media.

Artemis is online now  
Old
11-17-2012, 11:47 AM
  #249
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 95,189
vCash: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmautzie View Post
From Haggs' Twitter:

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/...HL_talks_.html

I've read about Mr Snider's love of the game before. If you love the game, you want to get a fair deal done and play!
If he truly loved the game he wouldn't have put forth that garbage offer sheet to Shea Weber that screwed over a small market team that financially is limited

The structure of that offer sheet is one of the reasons other owners want limits on bonus $$$ and length to protect themselves from organizations like Flyers , Hawks , Rangers

Blackhawkswincup is offline  
Old
11-17-2012, 01:07 PM
  #250
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
Absolutely makes business sense - but it leaves the public with asymmetrical information- we all know the ins and outs of every rookie contract but have to just take jj's word for it that he's struggling to keep the franchise afloat. Conspiracy theories always follow a lack of info and there is good reason for jj to hide as much money as he can going into these negotiations. Does the nhlpa have access to all the financial numbers that the general public does not (because they are not public companies)?

General side note- one of the overlooked benefits of unions is that all contracts are public, makes for a more comfortable work environment and helps avert potential corruption.
its frustrating for people like you and me and some of the others here that actually want to be educated in our opinions on these matters... but i think the evidence speaks for itself, that the NHL as a whole and even alot of the owners dont care much about PR and public opinion about what they do with their business practices.

i mean even here in edmonton there is an example of that with the way they are trying to get their new arena deal. when Katz bought the team he was a conquoring hero... a local billionair stepping up for the hometeam, but his handling of the arena deal has him becoming the devil in record time.

and... he gives lips service to 'caring' but his actions continue to kick sand in the face of the public here...

I remember year after year after year seeing profit statements released by the Bruins... and seeing comments by those in the know that the profit statements were being 'skewed.' Ultimately in the world of economics, accountants have a lot of discretion how they want to calculate profits/loses. Look at an example like Enron where accountants can choose practices that total into the billions of dollars one way or the other to make the numbers show up the way they want to on the books.

So... in the end... whatever numbers we fans see... are just numbers. They might be accurate to the penny... they might not. Any of us that get freaked out over a million dollars here or there... are just setting ourselves up to be fighting over the tilt of windmills.

And any of us that expect the owners or NHL to care whether we have all the info... are chasing our own tails.

At the end of the day all we really have to go on is human nature/logical reaction to normal business practices to make our judgements.

If the NHL was a very healthy league making tons of money... and if a lockout figured to tick off alot of ticket buying public and big spending sponsors... and if the NHL just decided to shut down operations anyhow... then would it actually make any sense? Are guys smart enough at business to become billionairs really inclined to make decesions that dont make any sense from a business pov?

The players position makes sense too. These arent very educated people as far as business goes. They are just players with short careers. They are entertainers who know that enterainers get paid a lot of money. You cant blame them for wanting what they can get. You cant blame their union leaders either. Union leaders dont become union leaders without having a fascist attitude towards big buisess. Its almost a religious exerience how union people feel about big business. So there is no blame to go around as to why each side is motivated to fight for their side of the fight...

but, at the end of the day comes the reality of who MUST FIGHT for their side. The players ultimately have WAY MORE TO LOSE if the NHL is shut down then anyone else does. The leaders of this union... dont have much to lose. They owners would ultimately be able to start up a new league if they wanted. Ultimately they still have their arena deals. New franchises that got started would ultimately have the same value/more value as the current franchises. If the teams are losing money operating now anyhow... then losing some during a restart wont really matter alot. If they become profitable on an ongoing basis for the next 10-20 years then whatever they lose for 1-2-3 years will ultimately be made back. These people are rich enough to withstand a couple years of lost money during a restart if a restart becomes necessary.

A handful of owners would lose more money i guess... Like Toronto for example might not be too happy... but even they can afford it.

So the reality is, that the NHL is going to get the deal they want here... or there wont be any deal at all. They are prepared to shut down rather then continue as is. The players understandably are frustrated how powerless they are in this fight. They have no trump card to play. Their only tool is to refuse to accept the deal offered. But the owners are prepared to let the plaeyrs be starved into submission so... in the end the owners will win.

If the players were smart.. theyd be making some counter proposals that are AUTOMATIC REJECTIONS... they'd get off this idea of revenue sharing that obviously the owners arent going to accept... they'd try to find something else in the process that the owners might budge on if they wanted something for themselves...

The owners could see their revenues drop even a billion dollars per year and still come out of a lockout much better off... provided the expenses drop at least a billion and 1 dollars. So all this talk that the owners need to be freaked out over the potential loss of revenues is not 100% accurate. What is important is how will expenses end up being reduced in comparison to how revenues end up changing too.

Revenues might go down a bit short term... and probably will... but if expenses are reduced on an ongoing basis, then the owners will come out of this smelling like a rose.

It doesnt really matter if us fans understand it or not... the owners have very good accountants and business people surrounding them that do understand this. Most the owners are very good buisness people themselves. They wouldnt be acting this way if it wasnt in their best interest.

And... when we see what just happened with Hostess... sometimes unions dont act in their own best interest at all. There was a time 100 years ago... 50 years ago... the unions clearly were a necessary evil and really helped their members... It is very difficult to find many examples in recent times where unions did anything other then hurt the companies. From the auto industry to meat packing to hospitals and schools to licquor sales and postal work and on to the world of sports... and all places inbetween... its very difficult for me to find many examples where unions werent a huge problem to deal with and actually didnt make the buisness almost unmanagable at times

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 04:36 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.