HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Jan 6/13: CBA reached to end the Lockout. Rejoice! (Post#783)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-07-2012, 03:30 PM
  #251
bobbyb2009
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Yup.

So they already got back 7%.

Why 'die on the hill' for the other stuff.

It's not like the expenses are hurting the bottom lines on franchise values.

A linked cap hurts the teams who have to spend to a floor.

We all know Wang wouldn't spend $20m on salaries unless he was forced.
I have to say, you continue to amaze me. You can not be in business for yourself... I wonder how you are adding to our economy, the creation of jobs, and to your own success- or if you rely on others to take the risks that provide you with opportunity? Serious question...

Your continued posting is galvanizing my once neutral perspective into one completely siding with the owners right to make more money. I dissagree with the way Bettman has gone about this, but I can no longer dissagree with his targeted end result.

If I make a 250 million dollar investment (or much more- taking massive risk with wealth that could very quickly dissapear in a financial crisis), what do you think is a fair expectation for me to have on my ROI (Return On Investment).

To be clear, I have owned several businesses in my life and employed over 60 people at one time. With the kind of wealth these owners have developed in their lives, I would not make an investment that was not either defensive in nature (Meaning there was very very little downside) or gave me a return on investment of between 5 and 15%.

In other words, nobody should have the entitlement to ask me for any extra perks until the company made approx a 10 percent ROI- or on a 250 million investment 25 million a year in profit.

The 6 or 7 teams in this earnings category have done well. The others have not. The league as a whole is not a business entity. However, they must co-operate and therefore, some revenue sharing is necessary. The teams that are losing money are getting killed and forcing some harsh decisions by the owners of those franchises and the league as a whole. The expenses in this league have not put the league in a situation that when taken against revenues actually produce an ROI in that range. Until then, it should be the owners right to expect to pay the players less and offer less entitlements. Only when each owner can expect to have a low risk investment with a reasonable ROI should the players share be growing.

This basic concept of business may be beyond you. Without these owners receiving a fair ROI, the players do not have a league to play in- SIMPLE concept. I get that you love yourself some of these blue colar workers like Sydney Crosby, but these 650 men, most of whom have no other marketable skills, and more than half of which have no education, are getting paid uhnbelievably well for doing something they love to do and would do for free (like the rest of us). In the meantime, some very smart, successful, and proven men with massive ego's and larger bank accounts (from all their business success), have paid for the right to earn a return on the business of hockey.

bobbyb2009 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 03:30 PM
  #252
Lard_Lad
Registered User
 
Lard_Lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Last I heard it wouldn't be retroactive per se, but based on the NHL proposals any years after the 5th on existing contracts would stay with the team that signed it even in the event of retirement.
Mind you, it's been a while since we've heard that specific demand mentioned. I don't know if it's just too small a detail to include in the summaries we've been getting, or if it's actually off the table. It'd be nice if somebody from our local media could find out, since it's obviously a huge deal for us.

Lard_Lad is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 03:33 PM
  #253
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,175
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lard_Lad View Post
Mind you, it's been a while since we've heard that specific demand mentioned. I don't know if it's just too small a detail to include in the summaries we've been getting, or if it's actually off the table. It'd be nice if somebody from our local media could find out, since it's obviously a huge deal for us.
From what I understand, it's one of the "transitional" elements that both sides have admitted not discussing much over the last few months, so I suspect the NHL is still pushing for it.

opendoor is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 03:38 PM
  #254
bobbyb2009
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
Yes, it is. If a team's profits over 7 years are only 10 million but the value of their franchise grows by 70%, that is not some fake value that the owner sees no benefit from. I don't know why anyone would argue differently. Even if the team was "losing" money while seeing vast growth in franchise value, that would be a sound investment. What businessman wouldn't spend 20 million to make 70?

And besides that, the league is making tons of money. This is indisputable if you look at revenues/player shares after the Levitt report in 2004.

Forbes doesn't pull their numbers from thin air, either.

You can argue for whatever side you please, but the league is making a lot of money. That is indisputable. Even Bettman doesn't dispute it when he's talking up his legacy. That talk just gets quiet when he's spinning like a top for negotiation purposes.
I would argue differently.

There was a TSX.V listed mining stock that I owned that traded over $6 dollars 18 months ago. I was rich and so were the major shareholders of the company. The company raised over 100 million bucks to go and continue its operations. Suddenly, the markets sagged- that same stock is only worth .30 today. There are over 1000 other examples just like it.

My point is twofold:
1) A franchise is only worth what someone will pay for it

2) What someone will pay for it can change very dramatically and very quickly

In the end, the Forbes list is entertainment, and nothing more. On its own, the value of a franchise is absolutely meaningless. Things like how manyu buyers are there for each franchise in the moment that I need to sell mine, how quickly will the NHL approve my potential buyer (See Balsile SP?), and for what price will they pay would be more meaningful, but still relatively meaningless, because my job is to ensure that the cash flow of the company provides me with the safety I require to get me to an exit strategy (selling the company) in the future. That future is uncertain, as is the timeline, so the only real measure of my entitlement in negotiation is my ROI (and that ROI is bound to be recalculated following a sale of the asset in the futer- but not today).

bobbyb2009 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 03:46 PM
  #255
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,175
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyb2009 View Post
I have to say, you continue to amaze me. You can not be in business for yourself... I wonder how you are adding to our economy, the creation of jobs, and to your own success- or if you rely on others to take the risks that provide you with opportunity? Serious question...

Your continued posting is galvanizing my once neutral perspective into one completely siding with the owners right to make more money. I dissagree with the way Bettman has gone about this, but I can no longer dissagree with his targeted end result.

If I make a 250 million dollar investment (or much more- taking massive risk with wealth that could very quickly dissapear in a financial crisis), what do you think is a fair expectation for me to have on my ROI (Return On Investment).

To be clear, I have owned several businesses in my life and employed over 60 people at one time. With the kind of wealth these owners have developed in their lives, I would not make an investment that was not either defensive in nature (Meaning there was very very little downside) or gave me a return on investment of between 5 and 15%.

In other words, nobody should have the entitlement to ask me for any extra perks until the company made approx a 10 percent ROI- or on a 250 million investment 25 million a year in profit.

The 6 or 7 teams in this earnings category have done well. The others have not. The league as a whole is not a business entity. However, they must co-operate and therefore, some revenue sharing is necessary. The teams that are losing money are getting killed and forcing some harsh decisions by the owners of those franchises and the league as a whole. The expenses in this league have not put the league in a situation that when taken against revenues actually produce an ROI in that range. Until then, it should be the owners right to expect to pay the players less and offer less entitlements. Only when each owner can expect to have a low risk investment with a reasonable ROI should the players share be growing.

This basic concept of business may be beyond you. Without these owners receiving a fair ROI, the players do not have a league to play in- SIMPLE concept. I get that you love yourself some of these blue colar workers like Sydney Crosby, but these 650 men, most of whom have no other marketable skills, and more than half of which have no education, are getting paid uhnbelievably well for doing something they love to do and would do for free (like the rest of us). In the meantime, some very smart, successful, and proven men with massive ego's and larger bank accounts (from all their business success), have paid for the right to earn a return on the business of hockey.
Much like wage slaves who compare themselves to hockey players, you comparing your small business experiences to an NHL team that is largely a hobby for the owners doesn't make a whole lot of sense for a host of reasons. ROI on sports teams is never going to be as good as normal businesses because many people aren't in it to make money. NHL teams are treated as hobbies, toys, and loss leaders for other more profitable enterprises by a good share of the owners.

If NHL teams were operated based on building a roster to generate a profit things would be handled a lot differently than they are, and you certainly wouldn't see a guy hand over $31M in salary to Ehrhoff, Myers, Leino, and Kotalik in 1 season despite having only $34M in gate receipts.

As for the bolded, you should also avoid being a condescending ***** if you expect people to take you seriously.

opendoor is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 03:56 PM
  #256
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,976
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
and loss leaders for other more profitable enterprises by a good share of the owners.
In the case of the Washington Capitals owner, I would say this is applicable (who also happens to own the NBA home team). Better to help fill-out the dates on the arena calender (I'm pretty sure he owns the arena as well) with the Caps when the Wizard aren't in town to help cover some the fixed costs.

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 04:21 PM
  #257
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,175
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
In the case of the Washington Capitals owner, I would say this is applicable (who also happens to own the NBA home team). Better to help fill-out the dates on the arena calender (I'm pretty sure he owns the arena as well) with the Caps when the Wizard aren't in town to help cover some the fixed costs.
It's applicable to a lot of teams. Many local governments basically paid for the arenas' construction on the promise of a professional sports team and then handed over the keys to the ownership group to manage the arena with 30+ year leases. Now that ownership group can have a hockey team that technically loses a bit of money, but that team pays the other arm the ownership's business for the use of the arena and the owner gets all of the revenue from the concerts, conventions, other sports teams, etc. using the arena. Both Florida and Tampa are good examples of this. The teams themselves might lose a bit of money, but the arena deal that could only exist as a result of that team makes a fortune.

Then you have cable companies that own teams (Philadelphia and Boston are examples). Those teams might not have the greatest profits on paper, but they also get to negotiate with themselves for TV rights and advertising.

When owners have their fingers in a bunch of related businesses, it's not that difficult to create paper losses and/or focus revenues towards non-HRR streams.

opendoor is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 04:56 PM
  #258
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Much like wage slaves who compare themselves to hockey players, you comparing your small business experiences to an NHL team that is largely a hobby for the owners doesn't make a whole lot of sense for a host of reasons. ROI on sports teams is never going to be as good as normal businesses because many people aren't in it to make money. NHL teams are treated as hobbies, toys, and loss leaders for other more profitable enterprises by a good share of the owners.

If NHL teams were operated based on building a roster to generate a profit things would be handled a lot differently than they are, and you certainly wouldn't see a guy hand over $31M in salary to Ehrhoff, Myers, Leino, and Kotalik in 1 season despite having only $34M in gate receipts.

As for the bolded, you should also avoid being a condescending ***** if you expect people to take you seriously.
But what about Mom 'n' Pop NHL owners, just trying to fund their retirement dreams with the returns on their hundreds of millions of dollars investments?


dave babych returns is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 05:03 PM
  #259
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyb2009 View Post
I have to say, you continue to amaze me. You can not be in business for yourself... I wonder how you are adding to our economy, the creation of jobs, and to your own success- or if you rely on others to take the risks that provide you with opportunity? Serious question...

Your continued posting is galvanizing my once neutral perspective into one completely siding with the owners right to make more money. I dissagree with the way Bettman has gone about this, but I can no longer dissagree with his targeted end result.

If I make a 250 million dollar investment (or much more- taking massive risk with wealth that could very quickly dissapear in a financial crisis), what do you think is a fair expectation for me to have on my ROI (Return On Investment).

To be clear, I have owned several businesses in my life and employed over 60 people at one time. With the kind of wealth these owners have developed in their lives, I would not make an investment that was not either defensive in nature (Meaning there was very very little downside) or gave me a return on investment of between 5 and 15%.

In other words, nobody should have the entitlement to ask me for any extra perks until the company made approx a 10 percent ROI- or on a 250 million investment 25 million a year in profit.

The 6 or 7 teams in this earnings category have done well. The others have not. The league as a whole is not a business entity. However, they must co-operate and therefore, some revenue sharing is necessary. The teams that are losing money are getting killed and forcing some harsh decisions by the owners of those franchises and the league as a whole. The expenses in this league have not put the league in a situation that when taken against revenues actually produce an ROI in that range. Until then, it should be the owners right to expect to pay the players less and offer less entitlements. Only when each owner can expect to have a low risk investment with a reasonable ROI should the players share be growing.

This basic concept of business may be beyond you. Without these owners receiving a fair ROI, the players do not have a league to play in- SIMPLE concept. I get that you love yourself some of these blue colar workers like Sydney Crosby, but these 650 men, most of whom have no other marketable skills, and more than half of which have no education, are getting paid uhnbelievably well for doing something they love to do and would do for free (like the rest of us). In the meantime, some very smart, successful, and proven men with massive ego's and larger bank accounts (from all their business success), have paid for the right to earn a return on the business of hockey.
Not a business man. I won't get too deep in to it, but clearly you don't understand that most professional sports want to win first and make money second.

How about you look at the bottom line of football clubs like man city and man united.

I'm glad you're last paragraph said 'ego's'. Seems you have one as big as Gary's.

Also, not sure how my post galvanized you, and why I should care.

But don't you think in an unlinked system teams could spend what they want ie. spend so they can get the ROI you suggested, instead of forcing Nashville etc to spend a certain amount?


Last edited by arsmaster: 12-07-2012 at 05:09 PM.
arsmaster is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 05:19 PM
  #260
Jarko2004
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 819
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyb2009 View Post
I have to say, you continue to amaze me. You can not be in business for yourself... I wonder how you are adding to our economy, the creation of jobs, and to your own success- or if you rely on others to take the risks that provide you with opportunity? Serious question...

Your continued posting is galvanizing my once neutral perspective into one completely siding with the owners right to make more money. I dissagree with the way Bettman has gone about this, but I can no longer dissagree with his targeted end result.

If I make a 250 million dollar investment (or much more- taking massive risk with wealth that could very quickly dissapear in a financial crisis), what do you think is a fair expectation for me to have on my ROI (Return On Investment).

To be clear, I have owned several businesses in my life and employed over 60 people at one time. With the kind of wealth these owners have developed in their lives, I would not make an investment that was not either defensive in nature (Meaning there was very very little downside) or gave me a return on investment of between 5 and 15%.

In other words, nobody should have the entitlement to ask me for any extra perks until the company made approx a 10 percent ROI- or on a 250 million investment 25 million a year in profit.

The 6 or 7 teams in this earnings category have done well. The others have not. The league as a whole is not a business entity. However, they must co-operate and therefore, some revenue sharing is necessary. The teams that are losing money are getting killed and forcing some harsh decisions by the owners of those franchises and the league as a whole. The expenses in this league have not put the league in a situation that when taken against revenues actually produce an ROI in that range. Until then, it should be the owners right to expect to pay the players less and offer less entitlements. Only when each owner can expect to have a low risk investment with a reasonable ROI should the players share be growing.

This basic concept of business may be beyond you. Without these owners receiving a fair ROI, the players do not have a league to play in- SIMPLE concept. I get that you love yourself some of these blue colar workers like Sydney Crosby, but these 650 men, most of whom have no other marketable skills, and more than half of which have no education, are getting paid uhnbelievably well for doing something they love to do and would do for free (like the rest of us). In the meantime, some very smart, successful, and proven men with massive ego's and larger bank accounts (from all their business success), have paid for the right to earn a return on the business of hockey.
All very interesting but irrelevant. The people you employed can each be replaced by thousands of others and you the business owner can quite easily be replaced by someone else in your market.

If the NHL folded today (wishful thinking), you would see most of those 650 players playing elite in North America in 2 years for a good living on being seen on TSN, Sportsnet, etc. Bettman's inner circle would then hopefully be where they belong, OUT OF HOCKEY. They are easily replaced. There isn't a fan among them. Their hockey gains and losses are insignificant relative to their other business/investment income. They would happily see the lockout last 5 years. There is no personal passion. How do call yourself a hockey fan and sympathize with them? What do you care how much MORE profit they make? Ticket prices will never come down. There is no potential gain for you.

The players may not have skills that ultimately add value to our society, but the fact is they are prime-time television stars (in Canada) and people will pay to see that one skill. The only requirement you need to be a successful business owner is a willingness to exploit everything and everybody and to never let anything human (such as a passion for a game) stand in the way of your corporate mandate.

There is a bigger than ever market for elite hockey in Canada. And an apparent market for spectacles (like hockey in football stadiums, and shootouts) wherever there is a large enough population in America. HOCKEY is bigger than the NHL in Canada. Why do we need a badly run "American" Hockey League dominating the landscape? These "owners" are very replaceable. So the players make a little less money? They are hockey fans too are they not? How do you (the fan) lose? You don't.

I'm starting to think de-certification is the best way go. Send the NHL into disarray. Hopefully some of them will never be back. Hockey and it's greatest players will always be back.

Jarko2004 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 05:20 PM
  #261
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 18,183
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vajakki View Post
Don't they get paid every 2 weeks? Not 100% sure though.
I wonder how much the make whole part comes down when that day rolls around? If the players aren't being paid then make whole for payday is meaningless and should get removed.

Just like two know exactly which day so I can get ready to see what happens.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 05:42 PM
  #262
Krnuckfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,163
vCash: 500
I'm just glad there hasn't been any idiotic quotes from the canucks' players talking about the lockout like the quotes coming from Prust, Upshall, EJ et al.. Will make it real hard cheering for them when they displaly levels of stupidity like that.

Krnuckfan is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 05:45 PM
  #263
bobbyb2009
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Much like wage slaves who compare themselves to hockey players, you comparing your small business experiences to an NHL team that is largely a hobby for the owners doesn't make a whole lot of sense for a host of reasons. ROI on sports teams is never going to be as good as normal businesses because many people aren't in it to make money. NHL teams are treated as hobbies, toys, and loss leaders for other more profitable enterprises by a good share of the owners.

If NHL teams were operated based on building a roster to generate a profit things would be handled a lot differently than they are, and you certainly wouldn't see a guy hand over $31M in salary to Ehrhoff, Myers, Leino, and Kotalik in 1 season despite having only $34M in gate receipts.

As for the bolded, you should also avoid being a condescending ***** if you expect people to take you seriously.
I completely disagree with you- of course!! I absolutely may pay Ehrhoff this kind of salary if I could find the business case for it or if I chose to not run my team in a way to expect a profit. However, my point, and I actually have one, as opposed to your response, is that I can CHOOSE not to make an appropriate return on MY investment, but my employees or customers can not EXPECT it from me... You can not expect it from me or any owner!!

As for the condescending tone, that is exactly what each of these posts that the poster I quoted was doing, AND it is exactly what your post did back to me. You, fellow post, even chose to call me a name and tell me that I will not be taken seriously for expressing my opinion (an educated one) that counters yours in a way you think sounds like I am talking down to someone. Odd that you are offended by me doing what my fellow poster did, yet you choose to complain about it AND escalate the using the exact same tactic you are offended by... hmmm?

Unless you can show me why you have relevant experience, and when you begin to actual express a view point backed up with any logic, proving or even arguing that my perspective is flawed, then I suppose I will continue to believe that you have no idea what you are talking about and you will consider my arguments (backed up by experience and reason) to be condescending to you.

Additionally, my "small business experience" has a correlation to the business of running a hockey team. As did another role in pro sport that I held for 3 years. It may not be be a 100% correlation, but I will assume you don't have an understanding of either my experience, running a pro sport franchise, or relevant alternative to make the comparable.

Cheers

bobbyb2009 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 05:47 PM
  #264
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyb2009 View Post
I completely disagree with you- of course!! I absolutely may pay Ehrhoff this kind of salary if I could find the business case for it or if I chose to not run my team in a way to expect a profit. However, my point, and I actually have one, as opposed to your response, is that I can CHOOSE not to make an appropriate return on MY investment, but my employees or customers can not EXPECT it from me... You can not expect it from me or any owner!!

As for the condescending tone, that is exactly what each of these posts that the poster I quoted was doing, AND it is exactly what your post did back to me. You, fellow post, even chose to call me a name and tell me that I will not be taken seriously for expressing my opinion (an educated one) that counters yours in a way you think sounds like I am talking down to someone. Odd that you are offended by me doing what my fellow poster did, yet you choose to complain about it AND escalate the using the exact same tactic you are offended by... hmmm?

Unless you can show me why you have relevant experience, and when you begin to actual express a view point backed up with any logic, proving or even arguing that my perspective is flawed, then I suppose I will continue to believe that you have no idea what you are talking about and you will consider my arguments (backed up by experience and reason) to be condescending to you.

Additionally, my "small business experience" has a correlation to the business of running a hockey team. As did another role in pro sport that I held for 3 years. It may not be be a 100% correlation, but I will assume you don't have an understanding of either my experience, running a pro sport franchise, or relevant alternative to make the comparable.

Cheers
Can I send you my resume because you seem like someone who would be a gem to work for?

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 05:57 PM
  #265
bobbyb2009
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarko2004 View Post
All very interesting but irrelevant. The people you employed can each be replaced by thousands of others and you the business owner can quite easily be replaced by someone else in your market.

If the NHL folded today (wishful thinking), you would see most of those 650 players playing elite in North America in 2 years for a good living on being seen on TSN, Sportsnet, etc. Bettman's inner circle would then hopefully be where they belong, OUT OF HOCKEY. They are easily replaced. There isn't a fan among them. Their hockey gains and losses are insignificant relative to their other business/investment income. They would happily see the lockout last 5 years. There is no personal passion. How do call yourself a hockey fan and sympathize with them? What do you care how much MORE profit they make? Ticket prices will never come down. There is no potential gain for you.

The players may not have skills that ultimately add value to our society, but the fact is they are prime-time television stars (in Canada) and people will pay to see that one skill. The only requirement you need to be a successful business owner is a willingness to exploit everything and everybody and to never let anything human (such as a passion for a game) stand in the way of your corporate mandate.

There is a bigger than ever market for elite hockey in Canada. And an apparent market for spectacles (like hockey in football stadiums, and shootouts) wherever there is a large enough population in America. HOCKEY is bigger than the NHL in Canada. Why do we need a badly run "American" Hockey League dominating the landscape? These "owners" are very replaceable. So the players make a little less money? They are hockey fans too are they not? How do you (the fan) lose? You don't.

I'm starting to think de-certification is the best way go. Send the NHL into disarray. Hopefully some of them will never be back. Hockey and it's greatest players will always be back.

Now this argument I actually like. I don't agree with all of it, but I respect it.

In fact, from a fan perspective, what makes things better for me and my belief that owners have the right to make money on their investment may not align. As a fan, I hope for certain things to be included moving forward in the deal- and those things are specific to me wanting my team to succeed (i.e. what is best for the Canucks today is probably more important to me than what is best for the players or the owners). I just hope that what is best today and for the future is what the deal actually ends up like.

Having said that, to provide discussion on your post: the people that I employed were absolutely NOT replaceable by thousands of others. Some were. But the cost of training and retaining good employees who understand the goals and the culture of an organization is significant. For example- It is MUCH easier to replace an 8th defence men than it is to replace the General Manager of my company (or any company)- let's put it that way. But what's your point here?

No business is irreplaceable. Mine certainly was replaceable and not integral to our lives and it is the only one of its kind in BC. And it can be replaced by something else entirely. And so can hockey. It is not a necessity in our lives- it is pleasure and entertainment. But what is your point.

And don't be so convinced that all owners can so easily replaced. There simply are not that many people out there with interest and the resources of these people. But I can't argue with you... My beef is not with the players or with the owners, but with people who constantly argue that these owners SHOULD give more and that the players are ENTITLED to get more and not receive less.

bobbyb2009 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 06:01 PM
  #266
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,976
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyb2009 View Post
My beef is not with the players or with the owners, but with people who constantly argue that these owners SHOULD give more and that the players are ENTITLED to get more and not receive less.
Actually that's not what this CBA battle is about. It's a battle over how much the players have to give back vis-a-vis the previous CBA. It's a given the players will get less out of this deal than the previous deal.

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 06:03 PM
  #267
bobbyb2009
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Not a business man. I won't get too deep in to it, but clearly you don't understand that most professional sports want to win first and make money second.

How about you look at the bottom line of football clubs like man city and man united.

I'm glad you're last paragraph said 'ego's'. Seems you have one as big as Gary's.

Also, not sure how my post galvanized you, and why I should care.

But don't you think in an unlinked system teams could spend what they want ie. spend so they can get the ROI you suggested, instead of forcing Nashville etc to spend a certain amount?
As I just said in another post, it is not for you to decide what an owner must do. Perfectly acceptable for an owner to say, I am willing to lose money, but it is not acceptable for the players or fans to EXPECT it.

I love your response re ego. I have one. We all do. Mine is just fine thank you. Each post you make spews your view at someone else and you do not seem to appreciate someone else sharing their real life experience in a way that does so to you. Too bad. And the fact that you don't care is exactly why I choose to tell you that you have absolutely no life experience to share with the rest of us that matters in any real way. It was just time that someone told you so.

And lastly, I am intimately aware of the financial issues surrounding professional football. And I return to my point that any owner has the right to choose to spend more than he takes in, but he should not be mandated to do so.

It is that last point re Nashville, where I completely agree with you. The fact that the players have forced a system where there is a flow so that they can benefit by larger salaries is something that should be looked at.

bobbyb2009 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 06:05 PM
  #268
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,725
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyb2009 View Post
And I return to my point that any owner has the right to choose to spend more than he takes in, but he should not be mandated to do so.
Amen brother, time for decertification to get rid of that stupid cap and floor, let these guys run their business how they see fit.

Scurr is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 06:06 PM
  #269
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,175
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyb2009 View Post
I completely disagree with you- of course!! I absolutely may pay Ehrhoff this kind of salary if I could find the business case for it or if I chose to not run my team in a way to expect a profit. However, my point, and I actually have one, as opposed to your response, is that I can CHOOSE not to make an appropriate return on MY investment, but my employees or customers can not EXPECT it from me... You can not expect it from me or any owner!!

As for the condescending tone, that is exactly what each of these posts that the poster I quoted was doing, AND it is exactly what your post did back to me. You, fellow post, even chose to call me a name and tell me that I will not be taken seriously for expressing my opinion (an educated one) that counters yours in a way you think sounds like I am talking down to someone. Odd that you are offended by me doing what my fellow poster did, yet you choose to complain about it AND escalate the using the exact same tactic you are offended by... hmmm?

Unless you can show me why you have relevant experience, and when you begin to actual express a view point backed up with any logic, proving or even arguing that my perspective is flawed, then I suppose I will continue to believe that you have no idea what you are talking about and you will consider my arguments (backed up by experience and reason) to be condescending to you.

Additionally, my "small business experience" has a correlation to the business of running a hockey team. As did another role in pro sport that I held for 3 years. It may not be be a 100% correlation, but I will assume you don't have an understanding of either my experience, running a pro sport franchise, or relevant alternative to make the comparable.

Cheers
Your arguments have to stand on their own. Appealing to your own authority on the matter while writing on an anonymous message board is both completely useless and kind of pathetic. You know nothing about anyone else on here and no one knows anything about you. You can brag about losing money on mining stocks or your involvement in "pro sport" all you want but it doesn't advance your argument one iota.

If you want to convince people you're right, come up with coherent and rational arguments about why the NHL's prospective ROI with the current proposals is untenable in a pro sports environment. Less talk about your vast experiences or belittling of others and more evidence based arguments.

opendoor is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 06:07 PM
  #270
bobbyb2009
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
Actually that's not what this CBA battle is about. It's a battle over how much the players have to give back vis-a-vis the previous CBA.
Fair enough. Your perception and mine of what this CBA battle is about are different. Mine is that the owners are arguing to get expenses in line with revenues, so that a critical number of teams can begin to reach the objective that I gave stated- having the ability to sustain an appropriate ROI. You believe this is about how much the players are giving up from the last agreement; while I believe it is about making the business profitable, sustainable, and more attractive in all markets- or at least giving all markets a chance to be profitable (not a goal that is unfair in my view).

bobbyb2009 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 06:08 PM
  #271
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,175
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyb2009 View Post
It is that last point re Nashville, where I completely agree with you. The fact that the players have forced a system where there is a flow so that they can benefit by larger salaries is something that should be looked at.
Odd, I seem to recall it was the owners that locked out the players for a season to force linkage and a cap ceiling/floor, which is precisely the mechanism that forces teams like Nashville to spend beyond their means.

opendoor is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 06:11 PM
  #272
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,976
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyb2009 View Post
Fair enough. Your perception and mine of what this CBA battle is about are different. Mine is that the owners are arguing to get expenses in line with revenues, so that a critical number of teams can begin to reach the objective that I gave stated- having the ability to sustain an appropriate ROI. You believe this is about how much the players are giving up from the last agreement; while I believe it is about making the business profitable, sustainable, and more attractive in all markets- or at least giving all markets a chance to be profitable (not a goal that is unfair in my view).
I just have a different opinion as to the health of the league overall as a whole - which I believe to be decent in spite of experiencing several years of a bad economy. Sure there are a fair number "bad apples" but IMHO, a number of those arised out of 'self-inflicted wounds' moreso than any CBA or league inequities (eg., Yotes, Fishsticks, Blues, Blue Jackets). And these are the really bad apples.

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 06:12 PM
  #273
bobbyb2009
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Your arguments have to stand on their own. Appealing to your own authority on the matter while writing on an anonymous message board is both completely useless and kind of pathetic. You know nothing about anyone else on here and no one knows anything about you. You can brag about losing money on mining stocks or your involvement in "pro sport" all you want but it doesn't advance your argument one iota.

If you want to convince people you're right, come up with coherent and rational arguments about why the NHL's prospective ROI with the current proposals is untenable in a pro sports environment. Less talk about your vast experiences or belittling of others and more evidence based arguments.
Fair enough.

I actually gave you some factual argument, laying out expectations for someone making an investment of any kind might be (in fact, would be). I also gave you an actual real example of what happens in the market from time to time.

Please provide me with you factual argument as to why this is unreasonable. I look forward to it.

Experience does matter in forming an opinion, and you certainly can't believe me in suggesting that I have done what I have done. I understand how that may look bad. Apologies if you think that I have inappropriately expressed my own experience.

I find useful info on here from time to time, and this issue is one close to my real life issues, so I tried to offer a perspective that is contrary to the one being constantly expressed on here- without any insight, in my opinion.

bobbyb2009 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 06:13 PM
  #274
bobbyb2009
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Odd, I seem to recall it was the owners that locked out the players for a season to force linkage and a cap ceiling/floor, which is precisely the mechanism that forces teams like Nashville to spend beyond their means.
All part of negotiations... You think it was the owners that wanted to be forced to spend to within a fixed amount of the mean? It scold have been, but that would seem like an odd choice and a very poor decision, as it has come close to being the cause for several of these franchises almost going bankrupt.

bobbyb2009 is offline  
Old
12-07-2012, 06:17 PM
  #275
CCF23
Registered User
 
CCF23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Richmond, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,575
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CCF23
One of two things is going to happen here:

1. The majority of the players are behind Fehr and this gets dragged on. Fehr pushes it, because that's what Fehr does. Decertification or disclaimer of interest happen. The owners, who aren't afraid of him, tell him to stick it up his ass. Things go very, very badly.

2. There is a large enough vocal group within the union that pushes Fehr to get back to the table and make a deal next week. Tells him to accept a 10 year CBA, tells him to drop the "transitional issues" (amnesty buyouts and escrow cap...isnt the 'make whole' a transitional method anyway?), tells him to try and push the contract limit as far as he can (6 or 7 years), and gets a deal done.

I don't get the sense that this NHL "final offer" is anything like the last couple. I really believe they're at the end of their rope here. The players need to recognize that and not screw it up, or else they're in for a world of hurt when all the progress they've made (they'd actually save face with a deal similar to what they have on the table now) comes flying off the table.

CCF23 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 05:58 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.