HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Lockout Discussion Thread 3.0

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-03-2012, 08:53 AM
  #526
Whalers Fan
Go Habs!
 
Whalers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Plymouth, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by waffledave View Post
But you see, the NHL will never go to Geoff Molson and say "hey, you make too much money, you need to give us some so we can bail out the other teams" because at the end of the day, the owners are not a single group, but rather 30 competing and seperate businesses. Sure, they claim to "revenue share" even though the NHL's concept of revenue sharing is not even remotely close to what other leagues have in place.
Sorry to pick out a single piece in an argument, but this false assumption always bothers me when I see it. While the 30 NHL teams compete with each other on the ice, they are part of a single business entity known as the NHL, and are 30 franchises within that entity. The Chicago Blackhawks business competition is not the Detroit Red Wings -- it's the Chicago Bulls, Chicago White Sox, Chicago Cubs, and Chicago Bears (plus whatever other area entertainment competition you want to lump in there).

The NFL has the right idea. Their revenue sharing plan ensures that every franchise makes money and keeps the entire business entity strong. It's the reason that one of its franchises can thrive in such a small market as Green Bay. Of course, there is a lot more revenue to go around in the NFL compared with the NHL, so there are other factors as to whether the NHL can survive in small hockey markets like Phoenix. However, the basic concept of who the business competition is doesn't change.

Whalers Fan is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 09:01 AM
  #527
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
It is amazing how many apologists for the plutocracy there are.

As an aside, I own my own business and wages take approx. 20% of revenues. The difference in skill level between my employees and NHL players is extreme.

I firmly believe that the NHL needs a revenue sharing plan as follows:
  • Broadcast revenue is shared equally among all teams.
  • Revenue from licensing deals - everything from jerseys to posters to team-logo beer coolers - is also shared evenly among all teams.
  • Gate revenue is split where the home team keeps 60 percent for each game, while the visiting team gets 40 percent.
On the third point, Habs gets 40 % of 400K when in Phoenix, and Phoenix get 40% of 1.8 Mill when in Montreal?

Habs gate receipts are likely four times that of each of the bottom 10 teams in the league, and two times that of each of the next ten teams. You think they'll give that money away?

Extreme example yes, but it means the top 10 teams in home revenue lose their shirts vs the bottom 10 teams. Will not happen. An 80-20 split maybe.

bsl is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 09:22 AM
  #528
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Let's just stop going in circles and leave it to a disagreement.
DA said it all in his last post, sorry dude. If the NHL wants to 'Partner' with the players, with a salary cap and a cap on share of revenue, it means they are asking the players to share the financial risk of owning teams.

It is evident. And it is why I side with the players. They create team value, and do not profit one penny from the rising value of the team they play for.

To be clear: While being asked to share operational risk, the players share nothing of the proceeds from the sale of their teams for profit. Often, huge profit. Far more than the operational losses of many years of running the team.

If the owners said, we ask you to share our financial risk, and we will pay you a percentage of profit on the sale of this team, then fine.

That is not what is happening, it will never happen, and that is why I can't believe anyone but a Capital owner and Rentier would ever side with the owners in this debacle. Is that you?

If not, it is not in your interest to defend the owners. You are like a factory worker in America who votes Republican because of your beliefs, and against your interests. It has not helped them, and it will not help you.

And, if the owner sells at a loss?

He can write it off. This is the real injustice of Capital today. Massive Losses should sink you like the Titanic, but they do not, not any more. I would take back this entire post if I knew that owners truly risked ruin for selling a team at a loss, but they do not. And so I do not support them in any way.

Today, in this time, you have to understand the difference between money, and Capital. It is an enormous difference.


Last edited by bsl: 12-03-2012 at 09:37 AM.
bsl is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 09:23 AM
  #529
impudent_lowlife
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Yeah I too don't give a **** about the owners either, but it looks like at wages 20% you're pulling some massive low wage ****.

Let me guess: Must be food and beverage, Branded for tourists and Americans who want a burger, with very high rent. The Hong Kong model: Pay the landlord, not the staff. You in Asia by any chance? The flag says you are, but in Japan.

Only way you do that in Japan is you run a Hard Rock cafe, and you hire Philipinas as wait staff. Cus no Japanese are gonna wait tables at Hard Rock. Surprised your staff are getting visas in Japan.

Bet I'm not far off though. Or then again, maybe I'm talking ****.
I lived in Japan for quite a few years but my home and business is in Canada. I definately pay better than what the market offers in what is a non-skilled, service industry job. I don't like staff turnover as training costs lots.

I see the solution as simple: the NHL and PA need to agree to a CBA and revenue sharing plan similar to that of the NFL. I don't see it happening as a few owners (Jacobs) are far too intransigent.

impudent_lowlife is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 10:12 AM
  #530
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
That's why I no longer go outside, or use the shower, or oven, or the stairs. It's too risky. Home accidents. I will cheat Death. I know it.
dunno what you are blabbering about; i did not mention "too much" risk. just stated that choice = risk. just like you would take quite a few "risks" if you no longer go outside.

uiCk is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 10:17 AM
  #531
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whalers Fan View Post
Sorry to pick out a single piece in an argument, but this false assumption always bothers me when I see it. While the 30 NHL teams compete with each other on the ice, they are part of a single business entity known as the NHL, and are 30 franchises within that entity. The Chicago Blackhawks business competition is not the Detroit Red Wings -- it's the Chicago Bulls, Chicago White Sox, Chicago Cubs, and Chicago Bears (plus whatever other area entertainment competition you want to lump in there).

The NFL has the right idea. Their revenue sharing plan ensures that every franchise makes money and keeps the entire business entity strong. It's the reason that one of its franchises can thrive in such a small market as Green Bay. Of course, there is a lot more revenue to go around in the NFL compared with the NHL, so there are other factors as to whether the NHL can survive in small hockey markets like Phoenix. However, the basic concept of who the business competition is doesn't change.
yea well, we are not talking about 1 team. we are talking about multiple teams. FLA x 2, dallas, carolina, phx, nsh .. those are teams who virtually have no market an no actual possible revenues. That's not including the teams who have to compete for a market and teams hit hard by mix of recession and already small market. by market i mean customers, and potential customers.
Their revenue sharing plan, and plans, are there to accommodate past mistakes of over expansion in the league.
At least Green Bay has a market.

uiCk is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 10:30 AM
  #532
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
DA said it all in his last post, sorry dude. If the NHL wants to 'Partner' with the players, with a salary cap and a cap on share of revenue, it means they are asking the players to share the financial risk of owning teams.

It is evident. And it is why I side with the players. They create team value, and do not profit one penny from the rising value of the team they play for.

To be clear: While being asked to share operational risk, the players share nothing of the proceeds from the sale of their teams for profit. Often, huge profit. Far more than the operational losses of many years of running the team.

If the owners said, we ask you to share our financial risk, and we will pay you a percentage of profit on the sale of this team, then fine.

That is not what is happening, it will never happen, and that is why I can't believe anyone but a Capital owner and Rentier would ever side with the owners in this debacle. Is that you?

If not, it is not in your interest to defend the owners. You are like a factory worker in America who votes Republican because of your beliefs, and against your interests. It has not helped them, and it will not help you.

And, if the owner sells at a loss?

He can write it off. This is the real injustice of Capital today. Massive Losses should sink you like the Titanic, but they do not, not any more. I would take back this entire post if I knew that owners truly risked ruin for selling a team at a loss, but they do not. And so I do not support them in any way.

Today, in this time, you have to understand the difference between money, and Capital. It is an enormous difference.

Yes, they do not profit from a raise of value in the team. They also do not get affected one penny by the loss of value. It goes both ways. The league was flourishing so it's easier to look at them not touching profit, but if it wasn't, they would still get every single penny promised.

Owners don't turn in profit, they lose money. Owners don't turn in profit, players still get paid the same. No risk.

And you're wrong. If they create team value and participate in the growth of revenues, the salary goes up, which means compensation goes up, which means players get rewarded. So, indirectly, they do get a share of the profit.
Likewise for if the league revenues decrease, the new salaries may slightly drop if ever there was a drop in the cap, however everybody already signed to a deal would still get the same amount as their contracts are guaranteed. So again, players risk nothing.
In order for it to be a risk, there must be the potential of loss, players do not lose a dime.

DA's point wasn't even that. He said the players take a financial risk because they are risking career ending injuries every time they play. He fails to see a difference between both.

Also, the idea that the owner is just fine even if he sells at a loss is simply wrong. We have no idea of the debt he owes. It's very possible that his investment turned in the negative. What usually saves them is their other business ventures and the huge assets they hold.

I'm not siding with anybody. I've said this about a million times already. I said at this point, it's all about cutting your losses short. If the players lose the season, they lose more cash than they would had they accepted a 12% rollback. At the same time, the league is losing a lot of credibility and sponsors. Potential TV deals might be gone as well. Who wants to invest in a league that could lockout every half decade?
Both sides are losers, both sides have handled it poorly, and both are dumb for letting it go as far as it has and still is.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 10:32 AM
  #533
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk View Post
dunno what you are blabbering about; i did not mention "too much" risk. just stated that choice = risk. just like you would take quite a few "risks" if you no longer go outside.
His point is that it's ridiculous to classify everything as risk.
If you do want to do that, then at least you should categorize risk.

Someone going for a walk at midnight does not take the same risk as someone deciding to invest 30K in a stock. Not comparable.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 10:57 AM
  #534
Whalers Fan
Go Habs!
 
Whalers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Plymouth, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk View Post
yea well, we are not talking about 1 team. we are talking about multiple teams. FLA x 2, dallas, carolina, phx, nsh .. those are teams who virtually have no market an no actual possible revenues. That's not including the teams who have to compete for a market and teams hit hard by mix of recession and already small market. by market i mean customers, and potential customers.
Their revenue sharing plan, and plans, are there to accommodate past mistakes of over expansion in the league.
At least Green Bay has a market.
I do not disagree that the NHL has expanded into markets where it cannot be successful, and needs to get out of those markets. Even the juggernaut NFL will abandon a market if it is not viable -- it will probably happen in Jacksonville. That does not invalidate my comments on who the league's business competition is, though. The league needs a revenue sharing plan that ensures that every valid hockey market can be competitive, both on the ice and in the business ledger. The NHL already went through a period of following Major League Baseball's model of "big market / big spending teams win", and I would hate to see it get back to that point again.

IMO, it is never in a league's best interest to have the majority of its franchises having virtually no chance of winning. That is one reason I no longer follow baseball or the NBA.

Whalers Fan is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 10:59 AM
  #535
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
His point is that it's ridiculous to classify everything as risk.
If you do want to do that, then at least you should categorize risk.

Someone going for a walk at midnight does not take the same risk as someone deciding to invest 30K in a stock. Not comparable.
What isn't comparable? financial risk to health risk, or the level of risk?

i didn't classify everything as risk, i said that there is risk behind every choice you make, no matter how low the probability.
Your "life choice" is just you computing what choice has lower level of risk/higher upside. doesn't make the "risks" disappears.


Basically, if i understood correctly, your stance is that players made a "life choice" and should not ecounter any risks, and should not bother dealing with/looking for potential risks as oposed to investors, who make choices based on risk calculations, and not a "choice". it's the same thing.
You make a choice, it can go your way, or another, wethere it's "stocks" or "going for stroll at night". The upside is there, and the downside is there too; both are exactly the same. When one makes "life choices" it's usually because you tend to ignore possibilities of risk, or just decide beat the "risks", and just "go for it". Kind of like an instinctual analysis of risk/benifit ratio.

Which brings me to the same point yet again, risk on either side, should not be used as an argument into what each side should rightfully get. Argument should/is about whos responsible of bringing in what % of revenues, and that it reflects in either side's income.


Last edited by uiCk: 12-03-2012 at 11:15 AM.
uiCk is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 11:23 AM
  #536
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whalers Fan View Post
I do not disagree that the NHL has expanded into markets where it cannot be successful, and needs to get out of those markets. Even the juggernaut NFL will abandon a market if it is not viable -- it will probably happen in Jacksonville. That does not invalidate my comments on who the league's business competition is, though. The league needs a revenue sharing plan that ensures that every valid hockey market can be competitive, both on the ice and in the business ledger. The NHL already went through a period of following Major League Baseball's model of "big market / big spending teams win", and I would hate to see it get back to that point again.

IMO, it is never in a league's best interest to have the majority of its franchises having virtually no chance of winning. That is one reason I no longer follow baseball or the NBA.
i'm all with you on the fact that there should be teams bailed out when need be to keep competitive league, more teams, more work.
But the league has to go deeper then just shifting revenue around, hoping for TOR and MTL to keep growing infinitely to cover the gap.

uiCk is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 11:29 AM
  #537
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk View Post
What isn't comparable? financial risk to health risk, or the level of risk?

i didn't classify everything as risk, i said that there is risk behind every choice you make, no matter how low the probability.
Your "life choice" is just you computing what choice has lower level of risk/higher upside. doesn't make the "risks" disappears.


Basically, if i understood correctly, your stance is that players made a "life choice" and should not ecounter any risks, and should not bother dealing with/looking for potential risks as oposed to investors, who make choices based on risk calculations, and not a "choice". it's the same thing.
You make a choice, it can go your way, or another, wethere it's "stocks" or "going for stroll at night". The upside is there, and the downside is there too; both are exactly the same. When one makes "life choices" it's usually because you tend to ignore possibilities of risk, or just decide beat the "risks", and just "go for it". Kind of like an instinctual analysis of risk/benifit ratio.

Which brings me to the same point yet again, risk on either side, should not be used as an argument into what each side should rightfully get. Argument should/is about whos responsible of bringing in what % of revenues, and that it reflects in either side's income.
Actually, all I said was that the owners are the ones taking the financial risks in the NHL, seeing how the players are guaranteed their contracts. They don't risk losing money, the only thing they risk is their health and possibly missing out on some future cash.

Let's get something straight, even the players agree with the 50-50 split. What they don't want is lose money off the contracts they signed. Understandable, but just not possible with a 50-50 split effective immediately.

Other people started talking about risks being taken as kids deciding a career path because they were grasping at straws. Every kid invests time and money into choosing a career path. It has nothing to do with who risks losing money in the NHL.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 01:01 PM
  #538
NotProkofievian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,139
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Let's get something straight, even the players agree with the 50-50 split. What they don't want is lose money off the contracts they signed. Understandable, but just not possible with a 50-50 split effective immediately.
No, what they want to do is mitigate the loss, which the owners agree with, and some semblance of a guarantee that they won't be losing even more in the near future.

That's entirely possible with a 50-50 split effective immediately.

NotProkofievian is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 01:19 PM
  #539
impudent_lowlife
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
On the third point, Habs gets 40 % of 400K when in Phoenix, and Phoenix get 40% of 1.8 Mill when in Montreal?

Habs gate receipts are likely four times that of each of the bottom 10 teams in the league, and two times that of each of the next ten teams. You think they'll give that money away?

Extreme example yes, but it means the top 10 teams in home revenue lose their shirts vs the bottom 10 teams. Will not happen. An 80-20 split maybe.
It happens in other leagues like the NFL. If you want the sunbelt franchises to be viable then it might be the way. Personally, I'm for a combination of relocation and contraction to get rid of the bottom feeders.

impudent_lowlife is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 01:33 PM
  #540
Habtchum*
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
It happens in other leagues like the NFL. If you want the sunbelt franchises to be viable then it might be the way. Personally, I'm for a combination of relocation and contraction to get rid of the bottom feeders.


That's what gonna happen if they cancel the rest of the season.

Players will loose 100-150 good well paid jobs in the process.

Habtchum* is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 03:11 PM
  #541
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotProkofievian View Post
No, what they want to do is mitigate the loss, which the owners agree with, and some semblance of a guarantee that they won't be losing even more in the near future.

That's entirely possible with a 50-50 split effective immediately.
That depends on how they go about it.

Kriss E is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 03:58 PM
  #542
charlie
Registered User
 
charlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,358
vCash: 500
I dont want anyone to get too excited and I cant mention any names but we have an ex NHLer in the local area who was in New York recently. He said we should see a deal by Dec. 15th.
I am just putting this out there and this is just word through the grapevine.
Remember I dont want to say anyones name because I myself dont think there will be a season this year.

charlie is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 04:58 PM
  #543
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 16,119
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Yes, they do not profit from a raise of value in the team. They also do not get affected one penny by the loss of value. It goes both ways. The league was flourishing so it's easier to look at them not touching profit, but if it wasn't, they would still get every single penny promised.

Owners don't turn in profit, they lose money. Owners don't turn in profit, players still get paid the same. No risk.

And you're wrong. If they create team value and participate in the growth of revenues, the salary goes up, which means compensation goes up, which means players get rewarded. So, indirectly, they do get a share of the profit.
Likewise for if the league revenues decrease, the new salaries may slightly drop if ever there was a drop in the cap, however everybody already signed to a deal would still get the same amount as their contracts are guaranteed. So again, players risk nothing.
In order for it to be a risk, there must be the potential of loss, players do not lose a dime.

DA's point wasn't even that. He said the players take a financial risk because they are risking career ending injuries every time they play. He fails to see a difference between both.

Also, the idea that the owner is just fine even if he sells at a loss is simply wrong. We have no idea of the debt he owes. It's very possible that his investment turned in the negative. What usually saves them is their other business ventures and the huge assets they hold.

I'm not siding with anybody. I've said this about a million times already. I said at this point, it's all about cutting your losses short. If the players lose the season, they lose more cash than they would had they accepted a 12% rollback. At the same time, the league is losing a lot of credibility and sponsors. Potential TV deals might be gone as well. Who wants to invest in a league that could lockout every half decade?
Both sides are losers, both sides have handled it poorly, and both are dumb for letting it go as far as it has and still is.
really... lol

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 05:45 PM
  #544
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlie View Post
I dont want anyone to get too excited and I cant mention any names but we have an ex NHLer in the local area who was in New York recently. He said we should see a deal by Dec. 15th.
I am just putting this out there and this is just word through the grapevine.
Remember I dont want to say anyones name because I myself dont think there will be a season this year.
For those who followed the last lockout in detail, were there people saying "yeah we're definitely getting a partial season" ??

Based on my well-known arguments in the surgical tanking thread, you can all guess that I am a firm supporter of a 48 game season, as the Habs need another top-5 pick.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
12-03-2012, 05:59 PM
  #545
WhiskeySeven
Mr. Worldwide
 
WhiskeySeven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 15,399
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlie View Post
I dont want anyone to get too excited and I cant mention any names but we have an ex NHLer in the local area who was in New York recently. He said we should see a deal by Dec. 15th.
I am just putting this out there and this is just word through the grapevine.
Remember I dont want to say anyones name because I myself dont think there will be a season this year.
We've heard this before, in these very threads, several times. Unless your ex-NHLer is a NHL Inc. associate, he's probably wrong - it's up to the NHL to give in not the NHLPA. The NHLPA are fuming.

I want this lockout to end asap but if it continues maybe it'll sow the seeds of Bettman's demise.

WhiskeySeven is online now  
Old
12-03-2012, 07:07 PM
  #546
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeySeven View Post

I want this lockout to end asap but if it continues maybe it'll sow the seeds of Bettman's demise.
That would almost make the lockout worthwhile.

I mean really, have you read which teams are in charge of negotiations? Boston Bruins, Tampa Bay Lightning, Winnipeg Jets... wtf?

The teams at the top should be Montreal, Toronto, Detroit, and New York in no particular order. They are the true custodians of the sport.

The fact Jeremy Jacobs, who prioritizes his political ideology over the game, is running things is truly bad news for the sport.

DAChampion is online now  
Old
12-03-2012, 07:25 PM
  #547
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk View Post
What isn't comparable? financial risk to health risk, or the level of risk?

i didn't classify everything as risk, i said that there is risk behind every choice you make, no matter how low the probability.
Your "life choice" is just you computing what choice has lower level of risk/higher upside. doesn't make the "risks" disappears.


Basically, if i understood correctly, your stance is that players made a "life choice" and should not ecounter any risks, and should not bother dealing with/looking for potential risks as oposed to investors, who make choices based on risk calculations, and not a "choice". it's the same thing.
You make a choice, it can go your way, or another, wethere it's "stocks" or "going for stroll at night". The upside is there, and the downside is there too; both are exactly the same. When one makes "life choices" it's usually because you tend to ignore possibilities of risk, or just decide beat the "risks", and just "go for it". Kind of like an instinctual analysis of risk/benifit ratio.

Which brings me to the same point yet again, risk on either side, should not be used as an argument into what each side should rightfully get. Argument should/is about whos responsible of bringing in what % of revenues, and that it reflects in either side's income.
I do think risk should factor into it, but it's a difficult calculation.

On the one hand, you have some people saying that since owners take 100% of the risk (e.g. players take zero risks), the players should only get 50% of the HRR. Needless to say that, that is a false premise from which the conclusion does not follow; it's a comprehensively invalid argument.

My view is that risk matters, but that to the best of my knowledge nobody has calculated the relative risk/reward ratios competently.

The players risk losing years of their lives, their health, their brains, and their money when they try and become players. If they do succeed in hockey, they can find themselves age 40 and have no job skills. Look what happened to Bob Probert. When they're in the league, they know their salaries will drop if league revenues drop, and some of them need to play a high-risk game to justify their salaries (e.g. grinders, fighters, defensive defensemen, power forwards). There's a lot of risks involved, and a lot of rewards for the low fraction who make it, it's not a trivial calculation. When a player like Max Pacioretty, who is privileged, 6'2", white, good-looking/charismatic and from a super-wealthy family; decided to pursue a hockey career by going to the University of Michigan for one year, he has likely given up the option to study business in the Ivy League and make an easy six figures and higher for the rest of his life. He almost died on the ice.

Conversely, the owners take risks. When an owner invests 220 million in a hockey team, he is choosing not to invest 220 million in stocks, in treasuries, in real estate, in gold bullion, etc. A better owner can lead to a more successful team; a cheap owner can take in an easy profit every year like Jeffrey Loria. However, I have not seen any competent calculation specifying the risk/reward trend and dispersion. Just people saying "omg the owners take risks !!! they are the lifeline of the sport !!!" That said, right now owning a team is a better investment than the stock market, with a 13% median increase in franchise valuations.


Last edited by DAChampion: 12-03-2012 at 07:34 PM.
DAChampion is online now  
Old
12-03-2012, 07:52 PM
  #548
HCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Wild West
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,744
vCash: 500
These posts on this forum are starting to sound like the NHL negotiations. There are long rambling rants by advocates for both sides about how their position is superior and the other side is either greedy, overpaid or both.

By now, no one has to read the post to know what it is going to say, you just have to look at the name of the poster. While we grumble about how Bettman won't give in or how Fehr won't give in, these two are probably more flexible in their positions than many of the posters seem to be. It has just been one side or the other taking their turn on the soap box.

I'll be happy when their something to talk about besides the negotiations.

HCH is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 08:17 PM
  #549
Ghetto Sangria
The implication
 
Ghetto Sangria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HCH View Post
These posts on this forum are starting to sound like the NHL negotiations. There are long rambling rants by advocates for both sides about how their position is superior and the other side is either greedy, overpaid or both.

By now, no one has to read the post to know what it is going to say, you just have to look at the name of the poster. While we grumble about how Bettman won't give in or how Fehr won't give in, these two are probably more flexible in their positions than many of the posters seem to be. It has just been one side or the other taking their turn on the soap box.

I'll be happy when their something to talk about besides the negotiations.
Going to have to agree to this. I think both parties are being greedy. The players got too much out of the last lockout, so the precedent has been set. The owners now want a bigger piece of the pie that they helped build, but seem stingy on certain contract issues. Fehr is playing spin doctor, Bettman is being a lil *****.

The reality is the players are going to have to cave in. They won't get a deal they'll be happy about... that passed when they weren't happy about the owners offer to keep a full 82 game season. Whether the League is offering them ****, or the NHL PA is being greedy, in the end, the players will have to accept a deal.

Play for a different league, or suck it up and getter done! They'll all still make tons of money... owners will still have to overpay to sign FA's and to keep their young talented players.

Ghetto Sangria is offline  
Old
12-03-2012, 08:48 PM
  #550
NotProkofievian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,139
vCash: 500
All these arguments are so tired. Both sides are the same! So, support the owners.

NotProkofievian 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 12:13 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.