HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Lockout I - Moderated: "I don't think there's a punch-line scheduled, is there?"

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-24-2012, 01:06 PM
  #526
Noob616
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilderPegasus View Post
Are you implying that hockey players can't be fired? They can be demoted which is equivalent to being fired.

I'd say CEO's for large corporations fall into a similar boat as NHL players. They usually have an enormous golden parachute if they get removed from their position.
Yeah, Wade Redden's been in real financial trouble since he lost his job.

Noob616 is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 01:30 PM
  #527
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Well, so bloody what.
If you're in a market that can't be competitive, you have 3 options.

Leave the Market.
Overspend to compete and lose money
Spend responsibly

Should the NHL be able to plunk down a team on Prince Edward Island and expect it to compete with Toronto?

Business is risky. If you want to open a business in a bad location, you're gonna have a bad time.
We get it. You hate the southern expansion. If you want to "grow" the sport it takes time. There are no growth opportunities in the locations you prefer. The people that live there are already hockey fans.

Moving a few franchises may be a good idea, but it doesn't solve the problem of the players getting a share of revenue that no professional sports league can support and have their franchises be profitable.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 01:32 PM
  #528
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 28,961
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crows View Post
Someone actually had a good point. Hockey players are emotional people. Probably the most emotional athletes out there. Fehr knows this. And by bringing so many players in to meetings, it just gets them angry and emotional and makes them text " bettman should die" to their other friends. They don't understand how ruthless business is, especially in these types of negotiations. It's one of fehrs ways to control the players and get them doing what he wants. Which is use their anger instead of their brains.

You believe this stuff?

Fehr makes the meetings open to his constituents so they can see everything that's going on.

That way, when the NHL tries to bash and denigrate Fehr (rather transparently, I might add), the players can tell other players what really happened.

Fugu is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 01:34 PM
  #529
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 28,961
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
We get it. You hate the southern expansion. If you want to "grow" the sport it takes time. There are no growth opportunities in the locations you prefer. The people that live there are already hockey fans.

Moving a few franchises may be a good idea, but it doesn't solve the problem of the players getting a share of revenue that no professional sports league can support and have their franchises be profitable.

I'm getting tired of the "grow the sport" argument. I just get the sense that some owners are trying to grow their wallets, after doing a poor job of due diligence.

What exactly is 'the sport' going to be grown into? More teams no one wants?

Fugu is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 01:36 PM
  #530
billybudd
5 Mike Rupps
 
billybudd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,482
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilderPegasus View Post
Are you implying that hockey players can't be fired? They can be demoted which is equivalent to being fired.

I'd say CEO's for large corporations fall into a similar boat as NHL players. They usually have an enormous golden parachute if they get removed from their position.
For players on NHL only deals, getting sent to the minors isn't the equivalent of being fired. It's the equivalent of losing your office and getting a cubicle in the basement, but still earning full salary.

And it's not just CEOs that get that Golden parachute. It's generally directors and above.

This is sort of off topic, but I've never understood the thinking behind this at all. CEO's generally negotiate severance packages before taking the job, so I get why they've got golden parachutes. But the "just send crabby emails all day and spend half my budget on consultants who tell me how to do my job" types employed above manager but below EVP or, in some cases, SVP shouldn't have any way to leverage any severance packages, let alone large ones. And it's not to keep quiet about insider knowledge that could be given to competitors, either. Such knowledge clumps up below and above these levels, not in them.

billybudd is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 01:41 PM
  #531
guyincognito
Registered User
 
guyincognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 31,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I'm getting tired of the "grow the sport" argument. I just get the sense that some owners are trying to grow their wallets, after doing a poor job of due diligence.

What exactly is 'the sport' going to be grown into? More teams no one wants?
Do you have any evidence or empirical proof that expansion in those markets isn't working at a grass-roots level?

guyincognito is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 01:41 PM
  #532
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,586
vCash: 500
I don't get why people think it's such a great benefit players "can't get fired." They also can't just quit and move to another NHL team anytime they feel like it. This is a fair trade off.

UsernameWasTaken is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 01:43 PM
  #533
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I'm getting tired of the "grow the sport" argument. I just get the sense that some owners are trying to grow their wallets, after doing a poor job of due diligence.

What exactly is 'the sport' going to be grown into? More teams no one wants?
I'm getting tired of some people having a complete lack of vision. Kids are now playing hockey in places like southern California and Texas. Several players from those areas are now playing in the NHL. It doesn't happen overnight.

Even with that, hockey will still be a niche sport outside of Canada and certain areas in the northern U.S.

Do the players want more teams to play for and more jobs, or do they need the superstars to get paid like the superstars in MLB or the NBA? Those are the choices, but Fehr likely is not stating them that plainly.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 01:47 PM
  #534
billybudd
5 Mike Rupps
 
billybudd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,482
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
We get it. You hate the southern expansion. If you want to "grow" the sport it takes time. There are no growth opportunities in the locations you prefer. The people that live there are already hockey fans.

Moving a few franchises may be a good idea, but it doesn't solve the problem of the players getting a share of revenue that no professional sports league can support and have their franchises be profitable.
I don't know about that second paragraph. The raw percentage of some arbitrary net is neither sustainable nor unsustainable on its own no matter what the percentage. Depends on what other factors do.

As a hypothetical, if the NHL had 100% revenue sharing, each team would make $8 million per year right now (and that's if you believe the NHL's most pessimistic numbers about its own profits, which I personally don't). That's not unsupportable by any means, particularly while franchise values are also rising. And that dollar value profit only goes down if operating costs outstrip growth. Which means everybody's arena lease (and everything else) would need to increase by about 8% per year before 57% became unsustainable in the long run.

There isn't a lockout because "good lord, 57% is TOO MUCH FOR US TO PAY!!!1" There's a lockout because the owners think they have the leverage to reduce that share and fly the asymmetrical growth albatross 5 years into the western sky.

billybudd is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 01:48 PM
  #535
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 28,961
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
I'm getting tired of some people having a complete lack of vision. Kids are now playing hockey in places like southern California and Texas. Several players from those areas are now playing in the NHL. It doesn't happen overnight.

Sure, but who took the expansion fees then didn't nurture the garden?

Also noting that I'm not really against teams in specific geographic locations. I tend to think 30 is too many, and that places like LA, SJ, Dallas, and yes, even Atlanta, are better choices than not. That said, the NHL failed abysmally in implementing its business plan. Just taking the expansion fee and not having some type of support structure, a knowledge transfer even, to help the new teams get set up, is a massive failure on the league's part.

The players are just employees after all who want to get paid as much as they can, like employees everywhere in the world. All of these 'messes' are of the league's own creation and mismanagement. Even their cap range/linkage system was greatly inflationary due to their failure in understanding weighted averaging, a basic mathematical concept even business schools teach.

Fugu is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 01:49 PM
  #536
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,256
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
I'm getting tired of some people having a complete lack of vision. Kids are now playing hockey in places like southern California and Texas. Several players from those areas are now playing in the NHL. It doesn't happen overnight.

Even with that, hockey will still be a niche sport outside of Canada and certain areas in the northern U.S.

Do the players want more teams to play for and more jobs, or do they need the superstars to get paid like the superstars in MLB or the NBA? Those are the choices, but Fehr likely is not stating them that plainly.
Lack of Vision? Like giving everyone a mortgage right? Give me a break. Smart business cut losses when things don't work. You admit that hockey will still be a niche sport. So it is either a blatant waste of time or an ego thing(not you, but the NHL)

As for Fehr. People will always take more money. Everything is about money. That's the story, and you're lying if you say you wouldn't like to get paid MLB/NBA money.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 02:01 PM
  #537
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
 
Gump Hasek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 222 Tudor Terrace
Posts: 7,231
vCash: 1250
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Do the players want more teams to play for and more jobs, or do they need the superstars to get paid like the superstars in MLB or the NBA?
There is actually a logical middle point that exists between the two rhetorical poles you've suggested. Given that the players seem about to soon receive a lesser share of league revenue, it is then as such in the players' best interest for teams to be located in areas where they may garner the most revenue to share. That means teams should be located in areas with an inherent interest in the product. My own view is that the current path leads to teams soon being located in places such as QC, another GTA franchise, & Seattle... and coming mainly at the expense/loss of some of the current weaker locations.

Gump Hasek is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 02:06 PM
  #538
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
There is actually a logical middle point that exists between the two rhetorical poles you've suggested. Given that the players seem about to receive a lesser share of league revenue, it is then as such in the players' best interest for teams to be located in areas where they may garner the most revenue to share. That means teams should be located in areas with an inherent interest in the product. My own view is that the current path leads to teams soon being located in places such as QC, another GTA franchise, & Seattle... and coming mainly at the expense/loss of some of the current weaker locations.
...and if you have read some of my other posts, I have said that re-locating some franchises may be a good idea. You aren't going to find 30 locations that are Toronto-like though. The basic idea is that paying the players 50% plus of revenue is not a sustainable model. No other major sport pays more that 50%.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 02:09 PM
  #539
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
 
Gump Hasek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 222 Tudor Terrace
Posts: 7,231
vCash: 1250
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
...and if you have read some of my other posts, I have said that re-locating some franchises may be a good idea. You aren't going to find 30 locations that are Toronto-like though.
You don't need 30 locations that are Toronto-like so I'm unsure of your point? What you need is some stability, and that is provided by replacing the worst/perennial welfare recipients with teams at least able to compete at the financial mean.

Gump Hasek is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 02:10 PM
  #540
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Lack of Vision? Like giving everyone a mortgage right? Give me a break. Smart business cut losses when things don't work. You admit that hockey will still be a niche sport. So it is either a blatant waste of time or an ego thing(not you, but the NHL)

As for Fehr. People will always take more money. Everything is about money. That's the story, and you're lying if you say you wouldn't like to get paid MLB/NBA money.
There is nothing wrong with being a niche sport in some locations and providing jobs to hundreds of players. In order for an NHL team to maintain support in those areas the team has to be competitive on the ice. That is why if you are going to have a league with this many teams (and player jobs), the GMs have to be operating on a relatively level playing field.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 02:12 PM
  #541
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
You don't need 30 locations that are Toronto-like so I'm unsure of your point? What you need is some stability, and that is provided by replacing the worst/perennial welfare recipients with teams at least able to compete at the financial mean.
There are anywhere between 10-15 teams that are not making a profit.

How many re-location opportunities are there?

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 02:13 PM
  #542
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
You believe this stuff?

Fehr makes the meetings open to his constituents so they can see everything that's going on.

That way, when the NHL tries to bash and denigrate Fehr (rather transparently, I might add), the players can tell other players what really happened.
I posted elsewhere about the issue of persuasion and going along with the crowd (Milgram). I do credit Fehr with listening and do think he is trying to accomplish that to which he has been directed (a primary goal being to mitigate or eliminate escrow). But I think there is some component of his own agenda. The quote about him leading off the conference calls with his monologue and opinion is not something that speaks favorably to your view. His running off to Minny to meet with players who requested him is supportive of your take.

SJeasy is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 02:15 PM
  #543
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
 
Gump Hasek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 222 Tudor Terrace
Posts: 7,231
vCash: 1250
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
There are anywhere between 10-15 teams that are not making a profit.

How many re-location opportunities are there?
I doubt many of those are losing money at an equal rate to Phoenix, Columbus, Florida, NYI. The majority of any others will in fact probably find relief from a cut to 50/50 - which is why there currently happens to be a lockout mainly over that specific core economic issue.

Gump Hasek is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 02:16 PM
  #544
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Sure, but who took the expansion fees then didn't nurture the garden?

Also noting that I'm not really against teams in specific geographic locations. I tend to think 30 is too many, and that places like LA, SJ, Dallas, and yes, even Atlanta, are better choices than not. That said, the NHL failed abysmally in implementing its business plan. Just taking the expansion fee and not having some type of support structure, a knowledge transfer even, to help the new teams get set up, is a massive failure on the league's part.

The players are just employees after all who want to get paid as much as they can, like employees everywhere in the world. All of these 'messes' are of the league's own creation and mismanagement. Even their cap range/linkage system was greatly inflationary due to their failure in understanding weighted averaging, a basic mathematical concept even business schools teach.
Yeah, I can't disagree with any of that. Now we that we are where we are, the players have a choice. Have the stars get paid more money and lose jobs, or negotiate a reasonable piece of the revenue pie and keep most of their jobs.

I bet the players as a whole don't think that 30 teams is too many.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 02:31 PM
  #545
billybudd
5 Mike Rupps
 
billybudd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,482
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
I doubt many of those are losing money at an equal rate to Phoenix, Columbus, Florida, NYI. The majority of any others will in fact probably find relief from a cut to 50/50 - which is why there currently happens to be a lockout mainly over that specific core economic issue.
Florida makes bank. Theirs is a paper loss. They have to file earning statements with the local government. SSEA is in fantastic shape.

billybudd is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 03:38 PM
  #546
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
 
Gump Hasek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 222 Tudor Terrace
Posts: 7,231
vCash: 1250
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybudd View Post
Florida makes bank. Theirs is a paper loss. They have to file earning statements with the local government. SSEA is in fantastic shape.
I'm aware that some would prefer to split hairs by claiming arena ops to the Panthers but from an NHL perspective not only is it not a paper loss but it also comes after receiving revenue sharing welfare. Having teams located in areas such as Florida serves as a revenue hedge to the owners; it keeps earnings available to players capped and keeps salaries artificially capped as such. Players would be better served by having a team located elsewhere - in an area that would actually grow HRR versus drain it.

Gump Hasek is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 05:37 PM
  #547
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A. suburb
Country: United States
Posts: 8,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyBowman View Post
God, 15-18 teams are losing money. If thats not laughable I don't know what is. Reminds me of those documents that popped up on deadspin a few years back showing that the teams that were crying poor like the Marlins and Pirates were making huge profits.
GG, so tell me, what's the correct number? Is it less than 5 or more than 10?

Some have thrown out the 10/10/10:
10 lose $
10 break even
10 make $

How many it is really doesn't matter, the fact is profits (or lack thereof) are bad enough for enough teams to warrant a lockout. That should be enough for any fan to understand.

And if the "correct number" of teams losing money was less than 5 we'd be watching tonight - but that ain't happening is it.

Butch 19 is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 05:47 PM
  #548
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A. suburb
Country: United States
Posts: 8,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
I don't get why people think it's such a great benefit players "can't get fired." They also can't just quit and move to another NHL team anytime they feel like it. This is a fair trade off.
Really? Any player would be fired would likely be for 1 of 2 reasons:

1. too high a contract amount
2. underperformance

Other owners could deal with this by:

1. offer player a new job for less $$
2. ... player likely out of hockey

hmmm... so for NHLPA members to not have those 2 possibilities... EVER.... seems to be a pretty good contract amenity, right?

Butch 19 is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 05:55 PM
  #549
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
( _)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,526
vCash: 13357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I'm getting tired of the "grow the sport" argument. I just get the sense that some owners are trying to grow their wallets, after doing a poor job of due diligence.

What exactly is 'the sport' going to be grown into? More teams no one wants?
Grow in reputation and interest, would be what I surmise the league's intent. If you want to capture the American market, you sort of need to target the "mega cities/states" like Texas, California, Florida and etc. Hockey won't grow out of being a niche sport if they ignore highly popular locations.

Bourne Endeavor is offline  
Old
11-24-2012, 05:59 PM
  #550
Disgruntled Observer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Sure, but who took the expansion fees then didn't nurture the garden?

Also noting that I'm not really against teams in specific geographic locations. I tend to think 30 is too many, and that places like LA, SJ, Dallas, and yes, even Atlanta, are better choices than not. That said, the NHL failed abysmally in implementing its business plan. Just taking the expansion fee and not having some type of support structure, a knowledge transfer even, to help the new teams get set up, is a massive failure on the league's part.

The players are just employees after all who want to get paid as much as they can, like employees everywhere in the world. All of these 'messes' are of the league's own creation and mismanagement. Even their cap range/linkage system was greatly inflationary due to their failure in understanding weighted averaging, a basic mathematical concept even business schools teach.
It's very difficult to grow the game in non-hockey markets when the teams are at dramatic financial disadvantages.

When you can't afford players and finish last every year, it's hard to win over new fans. And then pro-nhlpa fans say "It's not the players fault that the owners won't spend the money to make the team competitive".

When they try competing with the rich teams and sign expensive star players (who are needed to win over new fans), the owners start losing millions of dollars a season. And then pro-nhlpa fans say "It's not the players fault that the owners spend money they don't have".

In other words, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Growing the game in these places will take sacrifices from the "partnership".
The owners are MORE THAN doing their part in regards to these sacrifices. More than half of them are losing money. The rich owners share HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS with the small markets.

The players, however, are FAR too greedy to make any of these sacrifices. They LOVE the perks of expansion in their 'partnership', but are utterly unwilling to make any sacrifices at all.
Their average salary DOUBLED since the last cba. While more than half of the owners lose money. Yet the players STILL won't offer a concession without saying "What's in it for us?"
It's an unacceptable level of greed. I would say that it's borderline evil.

Disgruntled Observer 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 01:48 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.