The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Owner-Player meeting only, no Bettman or Fehr (UPD: 12/4 in NYC)
OK, what's that got to do with Lundqvist not seeing an invitation to meetings?
What Lundqvist is advocating for is that the profitable owners be invited to the meeting. He's not talking about being invited himself. He's free to go to any meeting he wants, unlike the NHL owners who only seem to be represented by a few owners who may not represent the views or interests of the profitable owners.
What Lundqvist is advocating for is that the profitable owners be invited to the meeting. He's not talking about being invited himself. He's free to go to any meeting he wants, unlike the NHL owners who only seem to be represented by a few owners who may not represent the views or interests of the profitable owners.
Ok then. I was obviously interpreting his "I have not seen any invitations to the meeting room" quote in a very strange context.
I agree those teams should be involved in talks, it just looked to me like he was saying that without him, they weren't being.
83% of the leagues profits, come from 3 teams...17% profit from the other 27 teams, come on guys...the writing is on the wall, the players are making way too much money for what the league is generating both on the revenue side, and certainly on the profit side of the business...
Imagine in all of the salaries paid out, 83% went to 70 players ( 10%) and the 17% of salaries paid out went to the other 630 players or 90%......how would the PA feel??
10% of the owners are making some real nice profits, the rest, not so much...
When I write " well managed team" I am talking about the business side, not necessaraly the hockey side.
Except that for most teams, the hockey side needs to do well for the business side to succeed.
__________________ "It’s not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, it’s as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
83% of the leagues profits, come from 3 teams...17% profit from the other 27 teams, come on guys...the writing is on the wall, the players are making way too much money for what the league is generating both on the revenue side, and certainly on the profit side of the business...
Imagine in all of the salaries paid out, 83% went to 70 players ( 10%) and the 17% of salaries paid out went to the other 630 players or 90%......how would the PA feel??
10% of the owners are making some real nice profits, the rest, not so much...
the PA would be smart enough to have relocated the lame duck teams years ago tho. as well how many teams lost money that spent above the floor ? it's not as easy as looking and saying oh that team lost money we need to change things.... there are variables.
the PA would be smart enough to have relocated the lame duck teams years ago tho. as well how many teams lost money that spent above the floor ? it's not as easy as looking and saying oh that team lost money we need to change things.... there are variables.
Years ago? Such as where? Keep in mind that only 10ish years ago Canadian teams were really struggling outside of Montreal and Toronto. Relocation isn't easy, nor is it cheap.
Yup. When hockey becomes a premiere entertainment draw in North America, then the players should be able to demand premiere dollars. But it isn't yet and they already are.
I suppose that would be true if you were the one designing the marketplace. The fact of the matter is that given the total number of players of desirable talent with X bidders for their services, they in fact were getting 74% of HRR. That is the value the NHL teams, unfettered by caps, put on their collective value.
Years ago? Such as where? Keep in mind that only 10ish years ago Canadian teams were really struggling outside of Montreal and Toronto. Relocation isn't easy, nor is it cheap.
yeah years ago... winnipeg was sitting and waiting for several years...
if a second team was known to come to Toronto, the arena in Markham would clear council in a heartbeat. same for Quebec... they are going ahead anyways, but a team can still play in the collisee until then...
but yes years ago it could have been done... hell 3 years of bankruptcy trying to get the team to Hamilton.....
If it is true that the majority of owners oppose the lockout, then this has the potential to make the league appear weak in front of the players. I wonder if Bettman wants the moderate owners to speak up to hopefully push the hardliners to back off their stance. We all may hate Bettman, but i'm sure he knows how much this is hurting the league.
yeah years ago... winnipeg was sitting and waiting for several years...
if a second team was known to come to Toronto, the arena in Markham would clear council in a heartbeat. same for Quebec... they are going ahead anyways, but a team can still play in the collisee until then...
but yes years ago it could have been done... hell 3 years of bankruptcy trying to get the team to Hamilton.....
Years ago, both Winnipeg and Quebec lost their teams because they weren't financially viable.... They were exactly the same as the lame duck teams now in the not so distant past. The main reason they are viable now is because of the power of the Loonie. The fans in both of those places are fantastic, and are undoubtedly deserving of a team, but the real test is going to be when the dollar drops again. They were very smart in securing multi-year commitments from their season ticket holders, and things are going great now, but what happens when payroll costs rise substantially when the dollar inevitably goes down? That's the big question.
Hamilton, sure, I think they could easily support a team. But, that's just one team. The facts are, you can't just move teams all willy-nilly. Fees have to be paid, and so on. Relocation is a very expensive process, not something that smart people do unless it's a last resort.
A preferable option is to create a league where teams can be stable and be somewhat successful financially even when times get tough. I'd hate to see one of the Alberta teams or Winnipeg struggling because of outside forces like the CAD, just like I hate to see the US teams struggle because the USD sucks right now.
If it is true that the majority of owners oppose the lockout, then this has the potential to make the league appear weak in front of the players.
So far we have absolute ZERO evidence to support the claim that majority of owners oppose the lockout. What we have is some random pieces of reports of Jabocs behaving badly.
Don't confuse the two.
Last edited by Fugu: 11-30-2012 at 09:35 PM.
Reason: done
Owners and players were given permission to do one-on-one face-to-face chats for the October 26th offer. I'm not sure it's really a personality problem keeping this deal from being made. I think that the players are not being well advised, definitely, but I don't know that the person who could convince them of that is the owners.
Maybe not the exact quote, but he did say time and again that the last system was needed to ensure all teams remained viable.
That the system would be better for the fans (lol, that one is still funny)
That the system addresses the economic issues that the weaker teams were suffering from.
He failed on all three counts and is hardlining now because he needs to save face and finally try to get the owners what he failed to get them in 1994 and 2005.
Fact is, the NHLPA could accept the hardline owners initial proposal and we will still be here in at the end of this CBA locked out again because the low revenue generating teams will still not have been able to keep up with the escalating salaries and now the owners are looking to reduce the portion of the pie the players get from 50/50 to 55/45 for the owners. IN ADDITION to further tightening on contractual issues such as extending UFA status back to 30 years old.
Agreed, on all accounts: All he does is lie and it irritates the hell out of me.
Years ago, both Winnipeg and Quebec lost their teams because they weren't financially viable.... They were exactly the same as the lame duck teams now in the not so distant past. The main reason they are viable now is because of the power of the Loonie. The fans in both of those places are fantastic, and are undoubtedly deserving of a team, but the real test is going to be when the dollar drops again. They were very smart in securing multi-year commitments from their season ticket holders, and things are going great now, but what happens when payroll costs rise substantially when the dollar inevitably goes down? That's the big question.
I personally doubt that the dollar hits .64 cents again, escpecially with our dollar being attached to the price of oil.
Quote:
Hamilton, sure, I think they could easily support a team. But, that's just one team. The facts are, you can't just move teams all willy-nilly. Fees have to be paid, and so on. Relocation is a very expensive process, not something that smart people do unless it's a last resort.
A preferable option is to create a league where teams can be stable and be somewhat successful financially even when times get tough. I'd hate to see one of the Alberta teams or Winnipeg struggling because of outside forces like the CAD, just like I hate to see the US teams struggle because the USD sucks right now.
Why not? It seems like that's how it went down with WPG1.0 and QUE1.0.
That's not at all why they are struggling: They pay their players in US dollars. The buying power has little impact when it's contained with-in the country and it is relatively equal to a neighbouring country.
I personally doubt that the dollar hits .64 cents again, escpecially with our dollar being attached to the price of oil.
Why not? It seems like that's how it went down with WPG1.0 and QUE1.0.
That's not at all why they are struggling: They pay their players in US dollars. The buying power has little impact when it's contained with-in the country and it is relatively equal to a neighbouring country.
I doubt it hits 64 again, but the 70s wouldn't surprise me at all, its just part of a cycle that always seems to happen. It was in the 70s when Winnipeg and Quebec had to move. Winnipeg moving to Phoenix shows exactly why you can't just up and move a franchise. The Nordiques lucked out because they relocated when they were already a top team. Had they sucked, it probably would have turned out the same way.
And the USD sucking is exactly why those teams are struggling. Not from a team salary standpoint, but disposable income for consumers in the states is at an all time low. People are spending money on essentials in many areas, and if they have to choose what to spend entertainment dollars on, hockey will almost always lose out to the other major sports. There are always going to be struggles with attendance for Phoenix, but some of the other smaller markets don't need much of a push to turn a modest profit and attendance makes a substantial difference.
I simply don't see the problems of this mess addressed by moving teams.
"One thing that really has bothered me when I'm reading the paper on all of this is the way they're talking about 'that idiot Bettman', or any of the other stupid adjectives they've used to describe him," said Lindsay, 87. "They and the fans and the media need to realize that Bettman is doing his job and fulfilling his responsibility to the owners, just like (NHLPA executive director) Don (Fehr) is to the players. The players need to respect and understand that. Don't go bad-mouthing Bettman like that."
Quote:
"Every one of these players needs to realize the money they've lost, they will never get back in their lifetime. The front two lines of every team are the big money-earners and they're going to be fine no matter what, but the third- and fourth-liners or the guys like (Hamrlik) at the end of their career, they're going to feel it and I'm sure they are feeling it, so they should speak up."
Quote:
You know what, really at this point it doesn't matter whether it's players or owners or who knows who is right and wrong. The damage they're both doing to hockey right now bothers me so much.
Interesting stuff from a HHOF guy. It is clear he doesn't think both Fehr and Bettman need to be out of the room, but any angle towards respect and love of the game would help.
Is there any hope that they'll meet again? Uhh... yeah.
Well we'll know if we have a season or we don't. I am really getting tired of seeing Bettman and Fehr. No season, they them both out the door and lets get some fresh faces in.
83% of the leagues profits, come from 3 teams...17% profit from the other 27 teams, come on guys...the writing is on the wall, the players are making way too much money for what the league is generating both on the revenue side, and certainly on the profit side of the business...
Imagine in all of the salaries paid out, 83% went to 70 players ( 10%) and the 17% of salaries paid out went to the other 630 players or 90%......how would the PA feel??
10% of the owners are making some real nice profits, the rest, not so much...
Maybe the owners should form a union and demand revenue sharing
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedWings19405
The man credited a lot of times as the father of the NHLPA Ted Lindsay with some interesting comments.
Interesting stuff from a HHOF guy. It is clear he doesn't think both Fehr and Bettman need to be out of the room, but any angle towards respect and love of the game would help.
Not interesting stuff at all.
Sounds a like like the mindless crap you can read anywhere on the internet.
Well we'll know if we have a season or we don't. I am really getting tired of seeing Bettman and Fehr. No season, they them both out the door and lets get some fresh faces in.
