HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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.

Owner-Player meeting only, no Bettman or Fehr (UPD: 12/4 in NYC)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-30-2012, 01:20 PM
  #151
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,005
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
that was a negotiated portion of the deal that the NHL is now looking to eliminate.

They want a fixed % linked to HRR.

The NHL bets against itself time and again and had they even thought that revenues would grow like this, they wouldn't have given in on that point.

Even when they made their first offer it was with the belief that revenues were not expected to continue to grow at the same rate it has the last 2+ years.
What are you tkaing about? The NHL didn't give in on that point. They are the ones who wanted a linked cap to begin with. And the NHL has been operating under a linked cap for the past 8 year.

The NHLPA offered the NHL a fixed cap during hte last lcokout to which the NHL turned down cause they wanted linkage which both shares in the ups and downs of revenue growth. If the NHL had taken the fixed cap the NHLPA had offered the players would have lost out big time.

cheswick is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 01:21 PM
  #152
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmycrackcorn View Post
We're all entitled to our own opinions.

I'm pro-reality. Don't give a rats *** about the players or the owners - sick of them both to be honest.

Eventually the PA will splinter. Maybe next week - maybe next summer. And they will never recover their lost earnings. Count on it.

"Fair" or "not fair" is not part of the equation here. Life isn't fair in the "real world". These self-entitled NHL players will eventually "get it". At least the smart ones.
Could not agree more. The finances of holding out make zero sense for the PA.

__________________
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame
HatTrick Swayze is online now  
Old
11-30-2012, 01:22 PM
  #153
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 29,211
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perrah View Post
“From our standpoint, we believe that the agreement will give 30 stable, healthy, competitive teams and that the fans in all of our markets will have every opportunity to think they have a shot at winning the cup,” Bettman said yesterday

http://www.hockeyinsideout.com/news/...004-05-lockout

You cant go blaming the players for mucking it up when they only used the power given to them in the agreement that was to give 30 stable, healthy competitive teams.
What is unreasonable with what he said? Parity has been greater than it ever was and the league has been more stable than previously. Remember that they came from place with no cap and where players salary ate 74% of revenue.

I don't think he expected inflationary pressure would cause the cap floor rising from $23M to $54M. That's the main cause for some markets being weak at the moment. Costs rising at a pace that's much higher than revenue rising in some of the markets.

No doubt owners have their share of the responsibility for the problems, as do players and agents and even external factors. This is why it's so sad that both sides can't treat this as a partnership. With a cap system the fortunes of both sides are linked.

Freudian is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 01:23 PM
  #154
Habtchum*
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
So what?

The bolded part is what is important to the fans. Do I really care if the owners have to do some more work on revenue sharing and cutting player salaries to make the 30 franchises stable? No, I don't.

If the owners and players want to maintain 30 franchises and all of the jobs they provide they are going to have to make some hard decisions on re-location of a 1-3 teams, increased revenue sharing, and lower costs for the owners (reducing players' share of HRR).
If NHL wants to keep 30 teams they will have to get rid of the cap floor. What's the point signing over-the-hill, overpaid players to reach the cap floor figures ?

On the othert hand, keep the cap ceiling at 70 million for the next 10 years. If richer concessions want to spend that much, So be it !

Habtchum* is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 01:24 PM
  #155
Perrah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,815
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
So what?

The bolded part is what is important to the fans. Do I really care if the owners have to do some more work on revenue sharing and cutting player salaries to make the 30 franchises stable? No, I don't.

If the owners and players want to maintain 30 franchises and all of the jobs they provide they are going to have to make some hard decisions on re-location of a 1-3 teams, increased revenue sharing, and lower costs for the owners (reducing players' share of HRR).
You will have to show me where I tried to say what was and wasnt the most important to fans.

To your point, I agree that is what is most important to fans but that wasnt the point of my post.

Perrah is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 01:25 PM
  #156
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,451
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habtchum View Post
If NHL wants to keep 30 teams they will have to get rid of the cap floor. What's the point signing over-the-hill, overpaid players to reach the cap floor figures ?

On the othert hand, keep the cap ceiling at 70 million for the next 10 years. If richer concessions want to spend that much, So be it !
The PA will never agree to a cap floor. In fact, it was the PA that insisted on the cap floor being included in the last CBA to ensure that players wouldn't be hard done playing on small market teams.

Ari91 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 01:26 PM
  #157
Mork
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,531
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Mork
To my mind, the players-owners meeting Bettman suggests is pure desperation. The NHL looking into the abyss.

There won't be any NHL hockey for a while.

Let's see what Forbes says about franchise values next year, and the year after that. Whenever this ends, business won't be what it would have been.

Mork is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 01:28 PM
  #158
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perrah View Post
You will have to show me where I tried to say what was and wasnt the most important to fans.

To your point, I agree that is what is most important to fans but that wasnt the point of my post.
Yeah, I took it a step further. You want to flay Bettman because he "promised" that the last CBA would fix everything.

So it didn't happen. Did you really expect that it would?

Other than taking a shot at Bettman and indirectly calling him incompetent (which he isn't) or a liar (he doesn't have a crystal ball), I don't see the point.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 01:28 PM
  #159
Habtchum*
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
The PA will never agree to a cap floor. In fact, it was the PA that insisted on the cap floor being included in the last CBA to ensure that players wouldn't be hard done playing on small market teams.
OK then, let's cut 4 to 6 teams and lose 100 to 150 jobs if that's what the players prefer...

Habtchum* is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 01:30 PM
  #160
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,005
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habtchum View Post
If NHL wants to keep 30 teams they will have to get rid of the cap floor. What's the point signing over-the-hill, overpaid players to reach the cap floor figures ?

On the othert hand, keep the cap ceiling at 70 million for the next 10 years. If richer concessions want to spend that much, So be it !
The cap floor is necessary to acheive the % of HRR nature of salaries (with as little headahe as possible). If there was no cap floor at the end of the year when the calculations were done, it would be very easy for the owners to have spent very little on salaries overall. They would then be required to pay back the players enough to equate it to 50% of HRR (or whatever it is).

The revenue sharing mechanism is in place to allow teams with low revenue enough funds to spend to teh floor.

cheswick is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 01:34 PM
  #161
Habtchum*
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
The cap floor is necessary to acheive the % of HRR nature of salaries (with as little headahe as possible). If there was no cap floor at the end of the year when the calculations were done, it would be very easy for the owners to have spent very little on salaries overall. They would then be required to pay back the players enough to equate it to 50% of HRR (or whatever it is).

The revenue sharing mechanism is in place to allow teams with low revenue enough funds to spend to teh floor.
So the good adimistrations and successful markets ALWAYS have to pay for the weak and badly managed teams. Does it make sense ?

Habtchum* is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 01:39 PM
  #162
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
If the PA refuses to do this, couldn't the league use this in court to counter a disclaimer of interest or decertification? It wouldn't prevent the players from filing suits but it could help in their favour of getting a ruling that the lockout will be considered legal even if the PA disbands (though precendence set by the NFL and NBA would suggest that the NHL would get this ruling anyway). A refusal would lend to the league's argument that disclaimer of interest/decertification is just a bargaining tactic used to threaten the league through legal means, afterall, if the players didn't want to want to talk without their union head in the room, why are they dissolving the union all together and giving up that right to be represented collectively by that same guy?
This is an excellent point that was kind of lost in the shuffle this morning.

The PA has a catch-22 to deal with if they intend to argue in court that they don't want to be represented by Fehr anymore.

tarheelhockey is online now  
Old
11-30-2012, 01:41 PM
  #163
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,005
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habtchum View Post
So the good adimistrations and successful markets ALWAYS have to pay for the weak and badly managed teams. Does it make sense ?
Its the nature of the system in place in the NHL. Just because a team is not making as much revenue as the Leafs doesn't mean its badly managed. I would say the Leafs not making the playofs for 8 years is badly managed but makes tonnes of revenue. And it certainly makes sense within that system.

The simple fact is, if you want a system where a certian percentage of overall league revnue is paid to the players, then yes you need a mechanism to even the revenues because revenues across teams are not consistent.

Alternatively you could set a cap and floor on an individual team basis and allow the Leafs to spend more than the Islanders and Coyotes. This would likely cause a disparity in quality of teams. You can't have your cake and eat it too

cheswick is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 01:45 PM
  #164
Habtchum*
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
Its the nature of the system in place in the NHL. Just because a team is not making as much revenue as the Leafs doesn't mean its badly managed. I would say the Leafs not making the playofs for 8 years is badly managed but makes tonnes of revenue. And it certainly makes sense within that system.

The simple fact is, if you want a system where a certian percentage of overall league revnue is paid to the players, then yes you need a mechanism to even the revenues because revenues across teams are not consistent.

Alternatively you could set a cap and floor on an individual team basis and allow the Leafs to spend more than the Islanders and Coyotes. This would likely cause a disparity in quality of teams. You can't have your cake and eat it too
So 3 teams making 83% of the total revenues means that this league is healthy and should continue on the same economic basis ?

The system doesn't work and most players are making at least 50% too much money.

NHL cannot compete against MLB, NFL and NBA. Bettman & cie are dreaming. They don't have the fat TV contract and never will.

If they finally cancel this season overall, thre at least 4 to 6 teams that will fold or be sold before next September.

Habtchum* is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 01:46 PM
  #165
Perrah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,815
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Yeah, I took it a step further. You want to flay Bettman because he "promised" that the last CBA would fix everything.

So it didn't happen. Did you really expect that it would?

Other than taking a shot at Bettman and indirectly calling him incompetent (which he isn't) or a liar (he doesn't have a crystal ball), I don't see the point.
Freudian wanted a quote about Bettman, I guess I didnt find the "fix everything" exactly but the man did proclaim that it should lead to 30 stable, healthy franchises. What it has lead to 1 league owned team, a moved franchise, 3-4 more on the brink, and depending what the source is 17 or 13 teams losing money.

There are miscalculations but this seems to be on a bigger end, they couldnt have expected the Canadian dollar to stay at 55-60 cents compared to the American dollar. They put the clauses in that allowed the players to raise the ceiling, and now I am being told that they couldnt have accounted for such a thing?

edit: The Canadian dollar was at 81 cents at the end of the 2005 lockout.

Perrah is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 01:49 PM
  #166
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 29,211
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habtchum View Post
So the good adimistrations and successful markets ALWAYS have to pay for the weak and badly managed teams. Does it make sense ?
In a system where there is some sort of revenue sharing, the answer is yes. The rich will help the poor. It's that way in all the big sports leagues in North America.

But in the long run the goal is that all markets should strive to stand on their own feet. It's sometimes lost in these discussions that most teams have increased their revenues greatly in the last seven years, including a lot of the problem franchises. But costs have skyrocketed at the same time.

I wouldn't equate successful markets with being good administrators. The teams making the most money have also made the most bad decisions when it comes to player contracts. They just can afford to absorb them.

Freudian is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 01:50 PM
  #167
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,005
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habtchum View Post
So 3 teams making 83% of the total revenues means that thios league is healthy and should continue onm the same economic basis ?

The system doesn't work and most players are making at least 50% too much money.

NHL cannot compete against MLB, NFL and NBA. Bettman & cie are dreaming. They don't have the fat TV contract and never will.
I never claimed the system worked. Your solution was to eliminate the cap floor. Which I pointed out was not a solution at all. It would be equivalent to increasing revenue sharing (unmder a % of HRR linked system) which you don't seem to understand.

I won't comment on most players are making 50% cause that seems to be a personal opinion on the worth of players and nothing to do with the conomics of the NHL

cheswick is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 02:01 PM
  #168
Habtchum*
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
I never claimed the system worked. Your solution was to eliminate the cap floor. Which I pointed out was not a solution at all. It would be equivalent to increasing revenue sharing (unmder a % of HRR linked system) which you don't seem to understand.

I won't comment on most players are making 50% cause that seems to be a personal opinion on the worth of players and nothing to do with the conomics of the NHL
We're supposed to live - like it or not - in a liberal economic system whre the stongest and biggest eat the smaller fishes. In outr economic situation, 30 teams in the NHL is way too much. Eliminating the cap floor doesn't mean these teams could not compete, hockey-wise.

If they keep the contracts length at 5 years and IF the cap hit = the real salary figure, you will have less "cheaters" like Minnesota and the Devils. UFA should not happen before the guy is 28 or has 8 full years at NHL level.

Habtchum* is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 02:07 PM
  #169
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,005
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habtchum View Post
We're supposed to live - like it or not - in a liberal economic system whre the stongest and biggest eat the smaller fishes. In outr economic situation, 30 teams in the NHL is way too much. Eliminating the cap floor doesn't mean these teams could not compete, hockey-wise.

If they keep the contracts length at 5 years and IF the cap hit = the real salary figure, you will have less "cheaters" like Minnesota and the Devils. UFA should not happen before the guy is 28 or has 8 full years at NHL level.

Teams in the NHL are partners not competing hoping to eliminate each other from business.

And once again you seem to lack fundamental understanding of how the economics of the NHL operate. Eliminating the cap floor while maintaining a system of shared % of HRR with the players would be no different then revenue sharing amongst the teams. Teams that spent more would have to pony up more to offset the discrepency in salaries created by the low spending teams not spending enough.

cheswick is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 02:17 PM
  #170
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habtchum View Post
So the good adimistrations and successful markets ALWAYS have to pay for the weak and badly managed teams. Does it make sense ?
Let's agree on at least this. The Maple Leafs (sorry to pick on them) are an example of a team that is weak and badly managed and they still make a lot of money. Let's don't pretend that a team is poorly managed simply because it doesn't bring in the same revenue as a team that has little to no competition for their fans' money.

Franchises like Nashville may be struggling to create a fan base in a non-traditional market, but they are an example of an extremely well run organization with great management.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:00 PM
  #171
FakeKidPoker*
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,681
vCash: 500
@JoshYohe_Trib

Consensus from players: They don't care if Bettman is around or not. They do care if Jacobs and same old owners are present at next meeting.

FakeKidPoker* is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:12 PM
  #172
steviek3b
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Northern, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 101
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
Teams in the NHL are partners not competing hoping to eliminate each other from business.
I understand what you are saying here. The NHL owners are actually partners most of the year.

However, what happens when July 1st rolls around and FA hits. Are teams like Philadelphia really partners with Nashville at that point? Just from the past couple of months, it doesn't seem like it. It seems like teams are all for themselves and could care less if a lower franchise survives.

steviek3b is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:16 PM
  #173
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,050
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FakeKidPoker View Post
@JoshYohe_Trib

Consensus from players: They don't care if Bettman is around or not. They do care if Jacobs and same old owners are present at next meeting.
That's interesting, if indeed that's the consensus, the issue is more to do with certain owners than Bettman.

If indeed it is a handful (but enough to make decisions) of owners holding things up as is being speculated, it's a another dynamic.

BTW-Jacobs is Boston isn't he? I would think a guy who just won the Stanley Cup two years ago would be a little more mellow.

Tinalera is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:16 PM
  #174
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,005
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by FakeKidPoker View Post
@JoshYohe_Trib

Consensus from players: They don't care if Bettman is around or not. They do care if Jacobs and same old owners are present at next meeting.
That jyves with some of the past reports out of the meetings. Players saying that Bettman was very respectful and took his time to answer the players questions. Its the players who never attended a meeting that bash Bettman.

cheswick is offline  
Old
11-30-2012, 03:26 PM
  #175
Habtchum*
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Let's agree on at least this. The Maple Leafs (sorry to pick on them) are an example of a team that is weak and badly managed and they still make a lot of money. Let's don't pretend that a team is poorly managed simply because it doesn't bring in the same revenue as a team that has little to no competition for their fans' money.

Franchises like Nashville may be struggling to create a fan base in a non-traditional market, but they are an example of an extremely well run organization with great management.
When I write " well managed team" I am talking about the business side, not necessaraly the hockey side.

As for Nashville, they can be as good as they want, but it's not and never be a real hockey market. I am sad for the owner and management of that team. They almost lost two of their franchise players in the same Summer.

But oiutside the 17,000-18,000 fans that are going to the games, how many more are they in that area and what are the TV ratings ?

Habtchum* 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 07:41 AM.

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.