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.

Friedman Speculates on Teams Believed to be Hardliners

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-30-2012, 03:01 PM
  #201
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 27,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
Does someone smarter than myself want to discuss potential negatives of expanding the cap range. Currently the floor and the ceiling are calculated as 8M from the midpoint. Seems fairly logical to me to make this gap wider. If the league wants to stick with linkage, wouldn't this be in the best interest of teams that struggle to reach the floor? I don't think players or rich teams would mind either. I understand the parity argument but aside from that, any drawbacks?

I wouldn't claim to be smarter than you, but I will opine that the NHL itself made the claim for parity. $16 million is already considered to be a significant enough difference (if you consider the cap circumventing contracts, you can add 2-3 elite players or a heck of a lot of depth). Even without the cap massaging, the difference between the highest and lowest spenders can be enough to make a difference--- all other things being equal. All things aren't equal however, so a well-managed team like Detroit, Pitt or Nashville get a lot more bang for their bucks than Toronto or Philly perhaps.

Nevertheless, dropping the cap floor would push the poorer teams further out in terms of competing for the best players.

I think the genie got out of the bottle when the league implemented the cap range system while allowing the UFA age to fall. Those two things in combination helped the bigger markets more than anything else--- IF the cap is growing. If revenues had not increased much, I think the dynamics of the system would have been different. I still think the BEST protection the small markets had was an UFA age of 31+.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 03:03 PM
  #202
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 27,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmer44 View Post
Bettman and the owners have stated that league success is a direct result of league parity. Moving the floor and ceiling further apart hurts parity, and the success and legitimacy of the league.

If there was disparity in the prior era, it was due to expansion. There are observers who have claimed that the Dead Puck Era really was due to parity. How do you kill scoring to that extent if teams are very far apart? Conversely, the 1980's with the incredible scoring rates was more than likely a result of massive disparity.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 03:07 PM
  #203
thom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,708
vCash: 500
The Family has a net worth of 700 million according to Canadian Business magazine

thom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 03:32 PM
  #204
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 27,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thom View Post
The Family has a net worth of 700 million according to Canadian Business magazine

Which family? Thomson? Thomson Holdings is worth over $20 billion.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 03:35 PM
  #205
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 27,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
Does someone smarter than myself want to discuss potential negatives of expanding the cap range. Currently the floor and the ceiling are calculated as 8M from the midpoint. Seems fairly logical to me to make this gap wider. If the league wants to stick with linkage, wouldn't this be in the best interest of teams that struggle to reach the floor? I don't think players or rich teams would mind either. I understand the parity argument but aside from that, any drawbacks?
Before the Sept lockout, I read an article that said the league front office, wants more parity, to have as level a playing field as possible. They want to close loopholes that give deep pocketed teams a spending edge :dumping bad contracts in the AHL,huge front loaded signing bonusues.

Expanding the cap range like you suggest, seems the exact opposite of Bettman's plans.

CREW99AW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 03:37 PM
  #206
marcel snapshot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EndBoards View Post
The way the math works, the floor grows faster than the cap. Correct that calculation, and the teams that are losing money become solvent. Rather than being a fixed dollar amount less than the cap, it should change/increase by the same percentage.

The fact that this has not been a part of any of the owners' proposals tells me that their supposed concern for the small market teams is a sham, and that the real goal of the 'hard line' owners in this lockout (and the next one, and the next one after that..) is to guarantee further increases in profits for large market teams.
There's no real constituency for lowering the floor. The players don't want it and the owners' prefer a solution where everybody pays less for players (via 50/50 and contracting restrictions that will put downward pressure on salaries) over allowing some teams to operate more cheaply.

But you're right, as a tool for addressing the league's financial woes it makes sense.

Conversely, it could hurt the quality of the on-ice product -- everybody starts playing like the Phoenix Coyotes who, as impressive as their success as was last year, weren't very interesting to watch.

marcel snapshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 05:41 PM
  #207
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Thomson Holdings is worth over $20 billion.
According to everyones favourite source Forbes, David Thomsons
holdings place him 17th amongst the Worlds wealthiest at $23B.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 05:52 PM
  #208
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 11,806
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faidh ar Rud Eigin View Post
Dallas' owner is cash strapped? Since when?

Gagliardi seems anxious about getting back, nothing points to him being a hardliner.
Friedman pointed to Dallas' owner being hardline. The previous owner, Hicks, was definitely a hardliner.

For all,
A team being profitable does not mean that they are doves with regards labor. You have to look deeper than that.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 05:57 PM
  #209
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 11,806
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I wouldn't claim to be smarter than you, but I will opine that the NHL itself made the claim for parity. $16 million is already considered to be a significant enough difference (if you consider the cap circumventing contracts, you can add 2-3 elite players or a heck of a lot of depth). Even without the cap massaging, the difference between the highest and lowest spenders can be enough to make a difference--- all other things being equal. All things aren't equal however, so a well-managed team like Detroit, Pitt or Nashville get a lot more bang for their bucks than Toronto or Philly perhaps.

Nevertheless, dropping the cap floor would push the poorer teams further out in terms of competing for the best players.

I think the genie got out of the bottle when the league implemented the cap range system while allowing the UFA age to fall. Those two things in combination helped the bigger markets more than anything else--- IF the cap is growing. If revenues had not increased much, I think the dynamics of the system would have been different. I still think the BEST protection the small markets had was an UFA age of 31+.
To make the range/sharing system work with a fixed range, they have to set sharing at a rate which goes up with revenues. It can't be a fixed sharing amount and the percent of revenues for sharing has to go up faster than revenues to make the system work. I can see where sharing (taxation) within the system could become onerous, outpacing the revenue growth of the large markets.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 06:27 PM
  #210
Faidh ar Rud Eigin
Modhnóirí Claonta
 
Faidh ar Rud Eigin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Transcendent
Country: Guernsey
Posts: 15,446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
Friedman pointed to Dallas' owner being hardline. The previous owner, Hicks, was definitely a hardliner.

For all,
A team being profitable does not mean that they are doves with regards labor. You have to look deeper than that.
Friedman has no proof, the only proof about who is and is not a hardline is Boston is a hardliner. He speculates all the southern teams as hardliners, there's no proof. Gagliardi's talk doesn't make him sound like one at all.

Faidh ar Rud Eigin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 06:35 PM
  #211
Ottomatic
Registered User
 
Ottomatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,737
vCash: 500
Owners want to hide their "hardline-ness" because they could become pariah franchises with players not signing there, blocking trades there etc.

Players should somehow leak a fake list - their best guesstimate on who the hardliners are and then release it and cause a big stink about it to get maximum publicity for the group - than any not in it who are identified would scream bloody murder and out the real hardliners.

I can't see all the Southern teams being hardliners because they're killing their market as we speak. Northern US and Canadian team markets will always be there even if the whole season is lost - but in non-traditional hockey markets the strike is killing the gains they might have made over the years trying to build a fanbase.

Ottomatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 06:35 PM
  #212
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faidh ar Rud Eigin View Post
Gagliardi's talk doesn't make him sound like one at all.
I would have a hard time believing that he was/is, particularly so what with the Stars being a shiny new toy he wants to show off. Nothing in his history would indicate he's in anyway predisposed to being a "Hardliner" in the same mold of a Jeremy Jacobs'. A bit litigious perhaps, but hey, generally only when he feel's he's been betrayed, shortchanged or whatever.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 06:38 PM
  #213
Multimoodia
Sicker Than Usual
 
Multimoodia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Range
Posts: 1,257
vCash: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by EndBoards View Post
The way the math works, the floor grows faster than the cap. Correct that calculation, and the teams that are losing money become solvent. Rather than being a fixed dollar amount less than the cap, it should change/increase by the same percentage.

The fact that this has not been a part of any of the owners' proposals tells me that their supposed concern for the small market teams is a sham, and that the real goal of the 'hard line' owners in this lockout (and the next one, and the next one after that..) is to guarantee further increases in profits for large market teams.
I agree with this.
When attempting to not by cynical regarding this entire thing I cannot figure out why people who are far better educated than I in statistics and modeling, would set the money to be a fixed dollar distance from the cap instead of a fixed percentage.

Of course, I also cannot figure out why they used the mean instead of the median when doing the averages at least not without falling back to my (in my opinion correctly sourced) cynicism again.

Multimoodia is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 06:42 PM
  #214
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 11,806
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faidh ar Rud Eigin View Post
Friedman has no proof, the only proof about who is and is not a hardline is Boston is a hardliner. He speculates all the southern teams as hardliners, there's no proof. Gagliardi's talk doesn't make him sound like one at all.
Hardliners are not all as crass as Jacobs. I agree that Friedman doesn't have proof, but I do assume that he has an inkling as to who is in which camp. And, he did not name all southern teams. For myself, I look for statements and interactions when they aren't involved in labor disputes that give clues as to their attitudes. Particularly their stance in handling labor in their non-hockey business.

For owners:
Do they ship jobs offshore?
Are they involved in labor disputes in their non-hockey businesses?
Have they been to court over violation of labor laws?
Are their companies green listed or black listed on ethical investment advisories?
What is their political affiliation? (US Republicans tend to be anti-labor)

I absolutely do not take a statement that they wish they were playing as an indication of being dovish.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 10:59 PM
  #215
OmniCube
Registered User
 
OmniCube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 62
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
Hardliners are not all as crass as Jacobs. I agree that Friedman doesn't have proof, but I do assume that he has an inkling as to who is in which camp. And, he did not name all southern teams. For myself, I look for statements and interactions when they aren't involved in labor disputes that give clues as to their attitudes. Particularly their stance in handling labor in their non-hockey business.

For owners:
Do they ship jobs offshore?
Are they involved in labor disputes in their non-hockey businesses?
Have they been to court over violation of labor laws?
Are their companies green listed or black listed on ethical investment advisories?
What is their political affiliation? (US Republicans tend to be anti-labor)

I absolutely do not take a statement that they wish they were playing as an indication of being dovish.
They are extraordinarily wealthy Caucasian male business owners...I don't think their political affiliations are a secret.

OmniCube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 11:31 PM
  #216
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 11,806
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OmniCube View Post
They are extraordinarily wealthy Caucasian male business owners...I don't think their political affiliations are a secret.
Lady Stanley had a list. For the most part Republican, but there were a few Democrats. At one point I was familiar with a single Fortune 100 founder, staunchly Democrat. It does happen and he ran his company in a very employee friendly manner. The company was very much green listed. It generally doesn't work to use blanket assumptions for individuals.


Last edited by SJeasy: 11-30-2012 at 11:36 PM.
SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 01:01 AM
  #217
Hackett
HF Needs Feeny
 
Hackett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,819
vCash: 500
With the stance that the NHL has taken, it doesn't seem like they are in any hurry, which makes one to believe that more than a few hardliners are actually having a better financial year by ceasing day to day operations.... scary thought

Hackett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 05:10 AM
  #218
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,246
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
If there was disparity in the prior era, it was due to expansion. There are observers who have claimed that the Dead Puck Era really was due to parity. How do you kill scoring to that extent if teams are very far apart? Conversely, the 1980's with the incredible scoring rates was more than likely a result of massive disparity.
Who are those observers? Names please.

Pepper is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 10:24 AM
  #219
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 27,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Who are those observers? Names please.
No, I have better things to do than waste a day trying to find old articles and reports. Believe it if you like.

Yes, it does rather incredible to consider that a low scoring era was due to lack of parity than the era before it with massively uneven scoring.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 11:46 AM
  #220
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
If there was disparity in the prior era, it was due to expansion. There are observers who have claimed that the Dead Puck Era really was due to parity. How do you kill scoring to that extent if teams are very far apart? Conversely, the 1980's with the incredible scoring rates was more than likely a result of massive disparity.
Very true. Bowman and the Wings, Lemaire & others adopting the Left Wing Lock in the early 90's, a strategy initially developed by the Czech's in order to stymie the Mighty Red Machine's attack in the late 60's & 70's. An off-shoot of the Neutral Zone Trap, which itself has been around since the 20's & 30's. A strategy formerly called Kitty Bar the Door, developed by hockey genius Art Ross. Imlach in Toronto during the 60's also employing similar tactics, many complaining that sure the Leafs won all those Cups, but Man was it boring hockey, ditto of course with the Devils a few decades later. Employed by Dave Tippett in Phoenix, as witness that franchises on-ice success of the past 2 seasons as when talent isnt readily available, the LWL just about the only way to neutralize superior teams, shutting them down, smothering the attack.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Who are those observers? Names please.
See above Pepper. There are innumerable articles from pundits far & wide bemoaning the LWL, the reasons instituted & copied based on the Wings, Devils & Minnesotas' successes, Expansion, dilution of talent. With the introduction of the new rules following the last Lockout of course, the game breaking open once again, teams like Vancouver, Chicago, New York & others flying high & fast, however the Lock was & still is employed by several teams, a direct-connect in some cases between Cap hit's as frankly its a cheaper way to ice a competitive team.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 12:20 AM
  #221
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Shake View Post
Easy to criticize someone when its not YOUR millions that you are losing. Take the caps for example. Lincoln Holdings have lost their ***** owning the caps.

If every team that lost money shut down there wouldnt be an NHL as we know it.

Teams being held hostage.... Really?
If the caps are losing a ton of money I don't know how. team owns their arena. every game has been a sell-out at exorbitant prices. concessions are crazy expensive.

atomic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 12:57 AM
  #222
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 11,806
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OmniCube View Post
They are extraordinarily wealthy Caucasian male business owners...I don't think their political affiliations are a secret.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
Lady Stanley had a list. For the most part Republican, but there were a few Democrats. At one point I was familiar with a single Fortune 100 founder, staunchly Democrat. It does happen and he ran his company in a very employee friendly manner. The company was very much green listed. It generally doesn't work to use blanket assumptions for individuals.
Here we have one where I did the lookup. Burkle is solidly a Democrat and supporter of Hillary Clinton. He also had a large piece of a green-listed company.

You can add Buffett to the list of Democrats as well.

Not all wealthy people are Republican.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 01:18 AM
  #223
Some Other Flame
Registered User
 
Some Other Flame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 788
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EndBoards View Post
The part in bold is spot on.

The way the math works, the floor grows faster than the cap. Correct that calculation, and the teams that are losing money become solvent. Rather than being a fixed dollar amount less than the cap, it should change/increase by the same percentage.

The fact that this has not been a part of any of the owners' proposals tells me that their supposed concern for the small market teams is a sham, and that the real goal of the 'hard line' owners in this lockout (and the next one, and the next one after that..) is to guarantee further increases in profits for large market teams.
Excellent summation on the lockout.

Since the league is the party claiming to have an issue with the last CBA, and since they were no longer willing to operate under it, and since they wanted change, one would think they'd take responsibility for addressing the actual issues.

Some Other Flame is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 07:08 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.