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.
Problem is, how does the league pay for failed franchises both in dollars or in loss of credibility? Cause they sure won't be talking about expansion anytime soon if decertification results in the loss of any number of franchises.
That's exactly what the PA should be worried about. Do they care more about 50-100K per season average salary or 30-120 jobs lost?
Let the players vote. Crosby & co. would be surprised.
Boston has alays been a fiscally responsible franchise. For the longest time us fans had to suffer through years where we thought of Jacobs as being too cheap to spend money to win a cup. Jacobs never threw money at the problem. It isn't until recent years that the Bruins have started spending closer to the cap, and it paid off with a Stanley Cup.
But in doing so they've always spent within their budget. There are no 14 year backloaded contracts in Boston. Because Jacobs is able to control his costs in line with his profits he is seen as the model of being fiscally conservative while still putting a highly competitive team on the ice. That's why he's the chairman of the board. He is seen as the conscience of the owners. The guy who is best able to save his fellow owners from themselves.
That means having to be the villain in the eyes of the players and the fans. But he's never shied away from that role. Those of us longtime Bruins fans know that all too well. But he gets results for both his own bottom line, and the league's. He may step on a few toes in doing so, but that's the price you pay if you want to be a leader.
Boston has alays been a fiscally responsible franchise. For the longest time us fans had to suffer through years where we thought of Jacobs as being too cheap to spend money to win a cup. Jacobs never threw money at the problem. It isn't until recent years that the Bruins have started spending closer to the cap, and it paid off with a Stanley Cup.
But in doing so they've always spent within their budget. There are no 14 year backloaded contracts in Boston. Because Jacobs is able to control his costs in line with his profits he is seen as the model of being fiscally conservative while still putting a highly competitive team on the ice. That's why he's the chairman of the board. He is seen as the conscience of the owners. The guy who is best able to save his fellow owners from themselves.
That means having to be the villain in the eyes of the players and the fans. But he's never shied away from that role. Those of us longtime Bruins fans know that all too well. But he gets results for both his own bottom line, and the league's. He may step on a few toes in doing so, but that's the price you pay if you want to be a leader.
but he isn't taking a hardline with the owners and forcing them to be fiscally responsible...he's taking from the players (and in ways that don't affect the bottom line) because to "save the owners from themselves"...and it's easy to see why people don't respect him for that.
but he isn't taking a hardline with the owners and forcing them to be fiscally responsible...he's taking from the players (and in ways that don't affect the bottom line) because to "save the owners from themselves"...and it's easy to see why people don't respect him for that.
It all affects the bottom line, no matter how peripherally. And by "taking from the players" to use your words, he is in turn helping the owners save themselves from themselves. You're missing the cause and effect of how business works in this kind of environment.
Money does not equal wins. How often does this need to be repeated? Lots of teams spend and get nowhere with the Leafs leading the list. Many teams have been more than competitive on a low budget.
You're absolutely right. However, those teams that don't spend (on "stars") generally don't have as many bums in the seats, ergo, economic issues. If you think that successful decertification on the part of the PA results in a 30 team NHL in the same locations they are now in 5 years, then I've got a piece of swamp I'll sell you.
You're absolutely right. However, those teams that don't spend (on "stars") generally don't have as many bums in the seats, ergo, economic issues. If you think that successful decertification on the part of the PA results in a 30 team NHL in the same locations they are now in 5 years, then I've got a piece of swamp I'll sell you.
I agree that successful decertification will reroute stars to large markets and that stars do more for butts in seats than they do for on-ice competitiveness. I do agree that decertification would probably equal contraction. I could see a lot of owners looking for buyers which would hurt franchise value across the board, including large markets. I don't think teams would fold immediately with decertification but unless some step was taken that I don't foresee then contraction would be the likely upshot.
I agree that successful decertification will reroute stars to large markets and that stars do more for butts in seats than they do for on-ice competitiveness. I do agree that decertification would probably equal contraction. I could see a lot of owners looking for buyers which would hurt franchise value across the board, including large markets. I don't think teams would fold immediately with decertification but unless some step was taken that I don't foresee then contraction would be the likely upshot.
How would contraction work? You think the other owners would buy the contracted teams?
It all affects the bottom line, no matter how peripherally. And by "taking from the players" to use your words, he is in turn helping the owners save themselves from themselves. You're missing the cause and effect of how business works in this kind of environment.
if there's a cap linked to a fixed % of revenue then the money to spend is what it is...and it's up to the owners (or, more specifically, GMs) to decide how to spend it. If they spend it stupidly then they can pay the idiot tax for their own behaviour.
...and it shouldn't be the players who are forced to save the owners from themselves. there's a baseline level of responsibility that they should have to show on their own...and if they can't then they can face the consequences.
the only real contract issue that should be addressed is preventing the front loaded contracts...and that can be done by fixing the maximum annual % variance of the contracts.
How would contraction work? You think the other owners would buy the contracted teams?
Not in a decertification scenario. Not enough profits to pull rescue operations like Phoenix.
There are some draconian penalties in breaking leases although they can be mitigated through bankruptcy. I would genuinely like confirmation in writing that the NHL doesn't have its signature on some of these arena deals as a guarantor. I would assume the potential for lawsuits stemming from bankruptcy or the folding of a team is pretty high (and costly) even if the NHL isn't acting as a guarantor in writing.
If I were the PA and I was caving to owner demands on any item, part of my agenda would be to have the NHL guarantee contracts in the event of bankruptcy or folding of a team. Right now, the contracts revert to the league with no obligation for payment until the player is moved by the league to a new team. The players are not free to seek employment elsewhere with a new contract and would still be on the hook for insurance should they opt to play across the pond rather than sitting at home. This has been a hole in the language of the CBA for as long as I can remember.
There are some draconian penalties in breaking leases although they can be mitigated through bankruptcy. I would genuinely like confirmation in writing that the NHL doesn't have its signature on some of these arena deals as a guarantor. I would assume the potential for lawsuits stemming from bankruptcy or the folding of a team is pretty high (and costly) even if the NHL isn't acting as a guarantor in writing.
I would be very surprised, beyond shocked actually to learn that the NHL had in fact at anytime anywhere in any city signed on as guarantor, backing a franchise in its dealings with municipal or even state authorities. Cant imagine it SJ. I mean, to imagine that the BOG's would approve such a deal, or that Bettman would ever agree to such just isnt on. Just look at what the NHL pulled in Glendale? Like lambs to the slaughter. Signed off on all rights through BK; signed on to a 10yr AMUL etc. These muni's are just playthings. Easily manipulated.... but really, its all hypothetical, as I dont believe the NHL will Contract, doesnt have to, doesnt want to, Bush League move.
How would contraction work? You think the other owners would buy the contracted teams?
In my opinion for a new business model to work out, for the league to be able to do stuff like contraction at will, it would have to bought outright like it was proposed in 2004. A corporation to buy the magority of the teams(except maybe the big 7 Habs/Leafs/Wings/Bruins/Hawks/Rangers/Flyers) and then this new entity would dissolve teams at will since they would own them. Already the league owns the Coyotes and you have Bell owning the Leafs and part of the Habs. This exist in many leagues where an owner owns more than one club. But before the transaction would occur, the league would have to look into it with lawyers if an anti-trust issue could come into play. If there are laws that protect sport related to this. And can players come against dissolving teams if there are no CBAs or Unions?
I would be very surprised, beyond shocked actually to learn that the NHL had in fact at anytime anywhere in any city signed on as guarantor, backing a franchise in its dealings with municipal or even state authorities. Cant imagine it SJ. I mean, to imagine that the BOG's would approve such a deal, or that Bettman would ever agree to such just isnt on. Just look at what the NHL pulled in Glendale? Like lambs to the slaughter. Signed off on all rights through BK; signed on to a 10yr AMUL etc. These muni's are just playthings. Easily manipulated.... but really, its all hypothetical, as I dont believe the NHL will Contract, doesnt have to, doesnt want to, Bush League move.
I would seriously like to know the NHL's involvement in the background of how some arenas have been built and deals executed. Promises made, papers signed, if any. For me, Nationwide, Prudential and Glendale are the big three that just didn't make sense from the outset. I agree that it would be high risk to act as guarantor, heck they won't even guarantee player contracts against bankruptcy.
I don't think the league will contract either unless there are major changes in the general economic landscape.
Winnipeg Jets representation at a recent NHL Board of Governors meeting piped up to say it was opposed to engaging in a long, bloody lockout sure to stymie their franchise’s momentum and hurt the game of hockey.
It wasn’t Winnipeg owner Mark Chipman, but rather one of the alternate governors representing the Jets.
Bruins Principal Owner and Chairman of the Board of Governors Jeremy Jacobs answered by reprimanding the Winnipeg representative as one of the “new kids on the block” and informed him that he would know when he was allowed to speak in the NHL board room.
Sounds to me like Jacobs was telling the guy to shut the **** up because he was speaking out of turn and above his pay grade in a board meeting.
The writer does a good job of providing evidence that Jacobs is a ****head... not surprising... most billionares are.
How would contraction work? You think the other owners would buy the contracted teams?
In one scenario an owner throw the keys on Garry desk and walk away instead of relocating the franchise or selling it to local interest the BoG decide to just contract the franchise and have a dispersal draft. It came very close to happen with Atlanta two years ago. But here lie the problem in an event of a successfull decertification by the PA things like entry draft and dispersal would likely be illegal under anti-trust law. From that perspective players under contract with a folded team will see their contract voided and would immediately be free agent. Or the NHL before they fold the team sell those contract to other teams via an auction.
That linked to a second scenario the NHL could use to finance a contraction. The league could buy out an owner from a team in bad shape either by mutual agreement or out of bankrupcy and finance the buyout by auctioning the contract between owners.
I would seriously like to know the NHL's involvement in the background of how some arenas have been built and deals executed. Promises made, papers signed, if any. For me, Nationwide, Prudential and Glendale are the big three that just didn't make sense from the outset. I agree that it would be high risk to act as guarantor, heck they won't even guarantee player contracts against bankruptcy.
Nationwide & Prudential I havent looked at, but in Glendales case, it really was all on Steve Ellman, who after being rejected in Scottsdale convinced Glendale to float bonds to build the arena, borrowing heavily from Credit Suisse & iStar Financial. AEG was involved early, Michael Dell & several other interesting parties, however its the former thats the most intriguing in this case. If you follow that trail, take you to some strange places. Abu Dhabi, London, Stockholm, Glendale etc etc etc.
Is that all this lockout is about 50 to 100k per player?
Well, given the difference between the latest NHL & NHLPA offers it's even less than that ($ per player per season)
NHLPA keeps claiming it's ready take 50-50 split but it's not ready to give back any actual dollars.
As much I'd love to see NHL hockey this season, part of me wants to see NHLPA imploding when the players start asking Fehr how they will get back the 1.8B they missed. Any claim of "we'll be doing this for future players" is easily dismissed as NHLPA has already agreed to make any future contracts with 50-50 split cap limitations, at the moment they are only fighting for current contracts.
Well, given the difference between the latest NHL & NHLPA offers it's even less than that ($ per player per season)
NHLPA keeps claiming it's ready take 50-50 split but it's not ready to give back any actual dollars.
As much I'd love to see NHL hockey this season, part of me wants to see NHLPA imploding when the players start asking Fehr how they will get back the 1.8B they missed. Any claim of "we'll be doing this for future players" is easily dismissed as NHLPA has already agreed to make any future contracts with 50-50 split cap limitations, at the moment they are only fighting for current contracts.
Haha pepper, first of all, that's an understatement, and I don't think anyone else on these boards has missed what this is about for you...
For the record, I have no problem with holding Jacobs responsible, if as long as "responsible" you mean "responsible for whatever good comes out of the CBA, as well as the bad things happening now."
If the CBA turns out to be good for the sport, like the last one did when Jacobs led that particular charge, and you're willing to give JJ full marks for his role, then I'm on board with bringing up the cost. If you're not prepared to credit JJ if the lockout turns out to have been the right thing in the long run, then hold your peace now.
What has been reported by these guys? That the NHL issued a statement, rather quickly, denying this happened at a BOG meeting?
Atleast two different journos (I think one was a Jets writer, other possibly Friedman or LeBrun) wrote that their independent sources told there was no such incident in the meeting.
For the record, I have no problem with holding Jacobs responsible, if as long as "responsible" you mean "responsible for whatever good comes out of the CBA, as well as the bad things happening now."
If the CBA turns out to be good for the sport, like the last one did when Jacobs led that particular charge, and you're willing to give JJ full marks for his role, then I'm on board with bringing up the cost. If you're not prepared to credit JJ if the lockout turns out to have been the right thing in the long run, then hold your peace now.
If there's disagreement that it was good for the sport, what then? Some of us said that allowing the UFA age to drop was a bigger loss than most at the time could imagine, in terms of protection offered to weak teams. Furthermore, forcing teams to spend at a rate that's derived by revenue growth in the healthiest and biggest markets is hardly a sign of some solid business acumen. More an indication that they should have invested in some spreadsheet and modeling software, along with people who know how to use these tools.
Meanwhile, 3 of the biggest, most solid American markets won Cups during the last CBA. Only the Rangers of the O6 group failed; and Philly, one of the strongest with the O6, was in a Cup final and Conference final.
Atleast two different journos (I think one was a Jets writer, other possibly Friedman or LeBrun) wrote that their independent sources told there was no such incident in the meeting.
Then there's the official NHL/Jets statements.
Beyond the official statements, I only saw stories that independent sources told the reporter it did happen, and he responded to the official denials by saying he stood by his original report. Are you sure other 'independent' sources were cited? (It's not that I don't believe you, I just never saw such reports.)
