HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

Lockout Discussion Thread 3.0

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-04-2012, 11:40 PM
  #626
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Danglez View Post
That's what you point out in his post? Not the quote from a respected source?
He edited his post to add the content afterwards. Beforehand he just had that slogan up there.

Once he added the content, I replied to the rest.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
12-04-2012, 11:59 PM
  #627
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gusfring View Post
They don't need to "think" about it. Its about numbers.

The NHL made a mistake in overexpanding to bad markets, and now its trying to make the players pay for that mistake, said Raymond D. Sauer, president of the North American Association of Sports Economists and chair of the economics department at Clemson University. Its that simple.

Let me see: Chair of a major University's Economics department or a poster on a hockey message board?

I stand by my orginal argument.
when you refer to "most", it's expected that you find quote(s) from more than one source.

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 09:16 AM
  #628
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
The salary cap, as an example, is determined by the average revenue per team.

If you remove the weakest teams, then the salary cap should go up; according to the Forbes numbers it would go up by ~4%, if I'm adding properly. You'd have fewer players in the league, but average pay per player would go up.

That said, I made some mistakes, I apologize. My argument is not as complete as I thought it was. Here are some factors I neglected to include:

1) Even if the bottom-4 teams contribute 7-10% of league revenues, league revenues would not drop that much, because whatever playoff revenues these teams made would be reallocated to other teams who would now make the playoffs instead.

2) If you maintain an 82 game season, the remaining 26 teams would each host an additional ~13% home games... i.e. the gate revenues lost by not having Florida Panthers home games would be offset by more home games for the remaining teams. Total gate revenue should thus INCREASE if you remove the 4 weakest teams.

However, things I don't know nearly enough about to speak conclusively:

3) The salaries of scouts, coaches, GMs, etc might go up if the remaining 26 teams are on average better-managed, but I'm not sure.

4) The National TV contract would now be split 26 ways rather than 30 ways, but its total monetary value might drop if the ratings drop.

So based #1,2; I don't think contraction would solve anything, but one would need to think more about #3, 4.
Very complex mathematics. My instinct however says that 26 teams in decent markets will provide more total profit than 30 teams with four teams making a loss, thus hurting total profit.

In my mind, profit is what counts, not revenue.

bsl is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 09:16 AM
  #629
Habs
Registered User
 
Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,258
vCash: 500
It's disgusting to think once you remove the two most powerful men in the room, things get done. How on earth Fehr and Gary keep a job after this is beyond me, what a joke.

Habs is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 09:18 AM
  #630
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
The salary cap, as an example, is determined by the average revenue per team.

If you remove the weakest teams, then the salary cap should go up; according to the Forbes numbers it would go up by ~4%, if I'm adding properly. You'd have fewer players in the league, but average pay per player would go up.

That said, I made some mistakes, I apologize. My argument is not as complete as I thought it was. Here are some factors I neglected to include:

1) Even if the bottom-4 teams contribute 7-10% of league revenues, league revenues would not drop that much, because whatever playoff revenues these teams made would be reallocated to other teams who would now make the playoffs instead.

2) If you maintain an 82 game season, the remaining 26 teams would each host an additional ~13% home games... i.e. the gate revenues lost by not having Florida Panthers home games would be offset by more home games for the remaining teams. Total gate revenue should thus INCREASE if you remove the 4 weakest teams.

However, things I don't know nearly enough about to speak conclusively:

3) The salaries of scouts, coaches, GMs, etc might go up if the remaining 26 teams are on average better-managed, but I'm not sure.

4) The National TV contract would now be split 26 ways rather than 30 ways, but its total monetary value might drop if the ratings drop.

So based #1,2; I don't think contraction would solve anything, but one would need to think more about #3, 4.
Thorough, honest and academic. I expect nothing less of you DA.

bsl is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 09:20 AM
  #631
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gusfring View Post
Yet, most independant economists disagree with you.
You may be correct. But please explain why. Your audience here is varied in knowledge.

bsl is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 09:32 AM
  #632
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gusfring View Post
They don't need to "think" about it. Its about numbers.

“The NHL made a mistake in overexpanding to bad markets, and now it’s trying to make the players pay for that mistake,” said Raymond D. Sauer, president of the North American Association of Sports Economists and chair of the economics department at Clemson University. “It’s that simple.”

Let me see: Chair of a major University's Economics department or a poster on a hockey message board?

I stand by my orginal argument.
You betray a lack of education in your trust in university professors. And all the good ones would say the same.

I was in fact encouraged to question my professors, by my professors, and not one of them ever took offense. None of my professors ever said "It's that simple". Instead, they said: "I am not sure that I am correct, let us discuss this."

Sauer is very likely correct. But I don't care and I do not look to university professors for answers, I look to them for questions.

bsl is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 09:39 AM
  #633
gusfring
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
You betray a lack of education in your trust in university professors. And all the good ones would say the same.

I was in fact encouraged to question my professors, by my professors, and not one of them ever took offense. None of my professors ever said "It's that simple". Instead, they said: "I am not sure that I am correct, let us discuss this."

Sauer is very likely correct. But I don't care and I do not look to university professors for answers, I look to them for questions.
Really? My uncle is one of the leading genetics professors in the US.

If I have a question regarding the Human Genome Project, trust me, he's a good resource.

gusfring is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 09:41 AM
  #634
gusfring
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post



So you have one person, who probably isn't independent, and somehow you know what "most independent sports economists" think ???




Yes, because the dismal science a great analytical and predictive track record :-)

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/a...articleid=2234

Anyway you should have your own opinion rather than delegating to experts. Always think for yourself if you're in a position to do so. I know a lot of experts at various subjects. I'm an expert. Experts often know what they're talking about. But often, they're wrong, it happens. This will probably happen even more often in a discipline like economics than say physics, as the former has weaker foundations.

If you post his actual argument, I might be impressed. But right now it's just a conclusion and a credential. It has no value.
It is my own opinion. I have had this opinion for many years. Just because someone else has the same opinion, does it not make his only. Surely, that is a false argument.

gusfring is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 10:09 AM
  #635
Gally11
Registered User
 
Gally11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: St. John's
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,571
vCash: 500
lol the players really "paid" for the NHL's "mistakes" when their salaries nearly doubled over the last CBA.

Gally11 is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 10:26 AM
  #636
WhiskeySeven
Keeps hot stuff hot
 
WhiskeySeven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 13,857
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whereabouts Unknown View Post
lol the players really "paid" for the NHL's "mistakes" when their salaries nearly doubled over the last CBA.
Revenues went up by much more than that. If the economy is good shouldn't they all be getting appropriate raises anyway?

Edit: It's infuriating to think that there are people who really feel this way. I have no idea how to approach this.


Last edited by WhiskeySeven: 12-05-2012 at 10:47 AM.
WhiskeySeven is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 10:27 AM
  #637
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,342
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whereabouts Unknown View Post
lol the players really "paid" for the NHL's "mistakes" when their salaries nearly doubled over the last CBA.
misquoting what he said; the players "will pay".
And anyways, it's normal that if revenues goes up, player salaries go up, reason why there is a CBA. Right now, league revenues are going up and salaries are going down. So players "will pay" for gap in profits due to some teams that have very big gap between expenses and revenues.

uiCk is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 10:40 AM
  #638
HCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Wild West
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
BTW Dallas Stars are a profitable team. They have an operating income of 3 million/year, and their franchise valuation increased by 4% last year. There is no need for them to relocate. However, if you removed the 4 weakest teams from the NHL, they would become unprofitable due to rising costs. Dallas would only need to be contracted if you contracted other teams first.
The rising or falling value of a business doesn't necessarily mean it is profitable Shares of Apple have fallen 22% from their peak but they are still profitable. You, me or Forbes can put any price we want on a franchise but until it sells, we are only speculating what is value is.

We also don't know if Dallas would become unprofitable if four economically weak teams were removed. There are too many factors to consider.

And both sides must shudder at the idea of contraction. Losing jobs for 100 NHL players would be a black mark on Fehr's resume as well as Bettman's.

HCH is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 11:40 AM
  #639
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,657
vCash: 500
http://www.thehockeynews.com/article...ing-break.html

Either a deal gets done by Friday or the rest of December games are cancelled

Quote:
According to a source with a good knowledge of the NHL’s business workings, the league has a deal with its major sponsors that will pay it 100 percent of its money if the league plays a schedule of 61 or more games. If the schedule dips below 61 games, the league will receive only 75 percent of its sponsorship money. That percentage continues to decrease down to 50 percent if the league only plays a 41-game schedule.

CN_paladin is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 11:44 AM
  #640
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,342
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CN_paladin View Post
http://www.thehockeynews.com/article...ing-break.html

Either a deal gets done by Friday or the rest of December games are cancelled
Bettman canceled his press conference which was supposed to happen at 1pm. Good decision, since it's very useless to the negotiation process as a whole, and points to ever increasing progress made

uiCk is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 11:49 AM
  #641
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs 4 Life View Post
Most of them are too busy playing in Europe!!!

the 18 Players that will be there are:

Craig Adams, David Backes, Michael Cammalleri, Sidney Crosby, B.J. Crombeen, Mathieu Darche, Shane Doan, Ron Hainsey, Shawn Horcoff, Jamal Mayers, Manny Malhotra, Andy McDonald, Ryan Miller, George Parros, Brad Richards, Martin St. Louis, Jonathan Toews and Kevin Westgarth.
Bolded the players that have over 4mil left on their contracts - that's 11 of 18. Plus Malhotra has 2.5mil left, at the end of his career. None of the rest is under 27 years old.

If these are the sessions where a new CBA is finalized, I would bet that any compromises favor those players with big contracts. In other words, favorable "make whole" in exchange for concessions down the road. Round 3, 2018-19.

Roulin is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 12:41 PM
  #642
NewHabsEra*
 
NewHabsEra*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,695
vCash: 500
Personally I didnt talk much about this lock-out but how the players can blame the owners to spend riduculous money on contracts is beyond me, I mean at some point every organisations want to win, the players want to win, the coaches want to win, the GMs want to win and its not different for the owners.. Also its easier to sell seats when you have a good product on the ice, especially in good markets and for example Minnesota is a pretty good hockey market, with the adds they made, their fans will finally have a very good product on ice to watch and its easy to expect a signifiant upgrade on the tickets sell in the upcoming years.. Players want a competitive team to play for and if they dont feel their team isnt doing enough effort regarding UFAs and all, they will ask to be traded, so blaming the owners for not being structurated enough and spending like crazy horses is quite hypocrite..

NewHabsEra* is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 12:42 PM
  #643
overlords
Hfboards
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Trolling Brian Wilde
Posts: 26,411
vCash: 500
Has there been any discussion about rule changes or cracking down on existing rules like hooking and interference? 2012 season made it look like we were fast headed back to the dead puck era.

overlords is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 01:44 PM
  #644
Marc the Habs Fan
Moderator
Ours!
 
Marc the Habs Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Longueuil
Country: Canada
Posts: 50,344
vCash: 597
Crampoli joins the CBA talks today.

Will he lead another successful mission (suck for Galchenyuk being the first)?

Or will now all 30 fanbases hate him as much as we do if it collapses?

Marc the Habs Fan is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 02:13 PM
  #645
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CN_paladin View Post
http://www.thehockeynews.com/article...ing-break.html

Either a deal gets done by Friday or the rest of December games are cancelled
I think the earliest games could be played right now would be around January 1st with about a week to get a deal done, 10 days of camp plus 4-5 days for Christmas...maybe December 27th at the earliest. I think the most games they can play is around 50 right now.

Monctonscout is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 02:17 PM
  #646
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewHabsEra View Post
Personally I didnt talk much about this lock-out but how the players can blame the owners to spend riduculous money on contracts is beyond me, I mean at some point every organisations want to win, the players want to win, the coaches want to win, the GMs want to win and its not different for the owners.. Also its easier to sell seats when you have a good product on the ice, especially in good markets and for example Minnesota is a pretty good hockey market, with the adds they made, their fans will finally have a very good product on ice to watch and its easy to expect a signifiant upgrade on the tickets sell in the upcoming years.. Players want a competitive team to play for and if they dont feel their team isnt doing enough effort regarding UFAs and all, they will ask to be traded, so blaming the owners for not being structurated enough and spending like crazy horses is quite hypocrite..
That's why the CBA needs to have no loopholes like the 2005 agreement that allowed contracts to be buried in the minors(and off the cap) as well as 12 year "cap friendly" deals that go against the spirit of the cap. More revenue sharing will also make it easier for small markets to compete, let's face it nobody wants to pay $300 a night to watch the Habs play Boston or Toronto 15 times a year.

Monctonscout is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 03:38 PM
  #647
canadiensnation
Go Habs Go
 
canadiensnation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: GTA
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,266
vCash: 500
Peter Budaj has signed with HC Banska of the Slovak Extraliga.

canadiensnation is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 03:39 PM
  #648
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gusfring View Post
Really? My uncle is one of the leading genetics professors in the US.

If I have a question regarding the Human Genome Project, trust me, he's a good resource.
I also know somebody who was involved in the first successful genetic sequencing efforts. Great resource, a brilliant man with so much energy, but he does discuss at great lengths some of the internal arguments that experts have on even fundamental issues. As such, an expert opinion on these issues isn't equivalent to a fact since, among other reasons, you can frequently find another expert with the opposite opinion. For example, he likes to brag that when he was at Stanford aroound the 1980s he had long-running arguments with the mainstream professors, many of whom actually thought that junk DNA was junk (hence the name which was once thought to be a sensible label but is now recognized as a misnomer).

I don't just ask him for answers, I ask him for explanations when I talk to him. He's very thorough. I guess we can blame the media here: all they quoted from that sports economics professor were his credentials and his conclusions. Maybe he has some great, well thought out reasons for his conclusions, but they're not provided in the article. They don't explain his reasoning or uncertainty level at all, which is why I said it's not worth anything.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 03:44 PM
  #649
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc the Habs Fan View Post
Crampoli joins the CBA talks today.

Will he lead another successful mission (suck for Galchenyuk being the first)?

Or will now all 30 fanbases hate him as much as we do if it collapses?
Honestly, if I was a player whose career was probably over due to my declining play I'd probably be too embarrassed or ashamed to show up at these talks.

Maybe Campoli doesn't realize he's done. I just checked, he is indeed a free agent. The NHL labor market is not kind to 3rd pairing dmen with consistency issues. One bad year is enough to permanently lose your spot to the plethora of youth hungering for ice time.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
12-05-2012, 03:46 PM
  #650
thom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,981
vCash: 500
I would argue do you want to see 6 to 5 games like in the 1980's that was a joke for old timers like me.

thom 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 03:37 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.