The point is that the NHL has basically been crying poverty for those teams who are in trouble. The truth is that, while the hockey operations making a profit is desirable, it isn't necessary in many many cases. The article is using incomplete information to make the point, but it is definitely something that many of us have suspected for a while. For some owners, the hockey operations are a profitable entity. For other owners, the hockey operations are a loss leader that leads to income elsewhere. In the Panthers case, the Arena Operating (AOC) arm of Sunshine Sports (SSE) made $89m in profit over 10 years from 99-08. If Forbes' numbers are accurate, that's enough for SSE to have made $15m-20m over that time. We are only talking about $1.5m-$2m per year, which isn't all that much. But it is a profit.
This lockout is not about creating profits for the owners. It is about increasing them. And that's all well and good and within their rights to do, but articles like this provide some clarity through the smoke screen the league has been putting up during this process.
Crying poverty? Smoke screen? Listen to yourself. This is the ridiculous language that is poisoning the negotiations. Your argument is "Yea, sure, you're not making money with your hockey operation, but you're making money elsewhere so its all good." What a silly point. This is a hockey negotiation regarding hockey related revenues - thats what they're negotiating over. You want to talk about a smoke screen? A smoke screen is trying link 20,000 80 year olds that go see an Andrea Bocelli concert in south Florida to hockey in any way, shape, or form.
Nope. No its not blatantly false. If a team can't afford $45m in payroll, then they can't afford it. Some rev sharing and a bigger cut will only help for so long. Sustained growth and moving teams to viable markets will surely push the floor above $50m. Teams will struggle to keep up. Math is not blatantly false.
Owners cheated the cba last time, they'll do it again. Restrictions, they have them. They work, NYR as the prime example. What they need is restraint, NYR as the prime example... both ways.
"Weather" people want to hear it or not doesn't change facts.
Why do the players think the NHL was right (under the last CBA) and the rest of the sporting world is wrong?
Here's a thought... Since the NFL is a healthy league, and makes ridiculous money for all involved, why not use them as a blueprint? Realizing that they have a fantastic TV contract and as a revenue generator the NFL is light years ahead... What would be the argument to paying NHL players 57% when NFL players aren't even close to that? You'd think that since the NHL isn't close revenue wise they'd pay even less than 50% to players.
"Trust me I'm an expert, I watched 13 rangers games on NHL center Ice this year through streaming." -Starburst
"I don't even understand what the point of all this arguing is. Are you guys hoping that the other side is going to have an epiphany and go 'Oh, OH! You're right, we ARE going to lose this series!'" -Crease
why is burke allowed there? is he on the negotiating board now?
Burke always has been on the executive committee. Not sure if he's attended any meetings to this point. One thing though--he's not considered a hardliner and Toronto stands to lose the most money of any team the longer the lockout drags on.