HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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.

How will Fehr explain a missed season (if that happens)?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-08-2012, 12:04 PM
  #101
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,828
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
The NFL has figured it out, which is why they've always had significant revenue sharing--- qualify that by saying--- if you want to be a BIG league in the US with 30+ teams, you have widely disparate market potentials. The only way these teams can compete with each other on a level footing is if revenue is redistributed and shared.
Then why does the NFL have an artificial and complex economic system with a salary cap? Isn't that against what you want the NHL to have? You said you wanted a simple econimc system with massive revenue sharing.

Didn't the NFL just use the CBA negotiation to lower the players share of revenue? With their massive revenue sharing, why were the players asked to fund this with their share reduction?

The NFLPA said they went from 53% of revenue to 46.5-48% of revenue.

Quote:
NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith has stated that players were actually receiving around 53 percent of all revenues instead of the much advertised 60 percent.

• Players get 48 percent of "all revenue."

• Players' share will never dip below 46.5 percent, under new formula being negotiated
Sound like the NFL has some concerns too:

Quote:
Players believe they can justify a 48 percent take because of the projected revenue growth, as well as built-in mechanisms that require teams to spend close to 100 percent of the salary cap, a source told ESPN.com's John Clayton. The mandatory minimum spending increase is an element that concerns lower-revenue clubs, sources say.

For example, if the 2011 salary cap were to be at $120 million, a team would have to have a cash payroll of close to $120 million. In the previous collective bargaining agreement, the team payroll floor was less than 90 percent of the salary cap and was only in cap figures, not cash.

The higher floor proposal could cause some problems for the lower revenue teams such as the Cincinnati Bengals and the Buffalo Bills. Along with the salary cap, teams have to pay an average of about $27 million a year in benefits.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6687485

Sounds pretty complex.

Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 12:04 PM
  #102
oilexport
Registered User
 
oilexport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
The NFL has figured it out, which is why they've always had significant revenue sharing--- qualify that by saying--- if you want to be a BIG league in the US with 30+ teams, you have widely disparate market potentials. The only way these teams can compete with each other on a level footing is if revenue is redistributed and shared.
Don't you need big revenue T.V. contracts to make this feasible. Toronto and NY are not going to give all thier net cash to everybody else...

By the way, the NBC contract that the evil Gary B. got must be a step in the right direction ?

oilexport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 12:10 PM
  #103
massivegoonery
Registered User
 
massivegoonery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 11,326
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilexport View Post
Don't you need big revenue T.V. contracts to make this feasible. Toronto and NY are not going to give all thier net cash to everybody else...
Why don't the Rangers and Leafs just tour the continent playing each other, like the Harlem Globetrotters and the Washington Generals (I'll leave it to you to figure out which team is which)?

That way, they'd get to keep all of their precious monies.

massivegoonery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 12:51 PM
  #104
oilexport
Registered User
 
oilexport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by massivegoonery View Post
Why don't the Rangers and Leafs just tour the continent playing each other, like the Harlem Globetrotters and the Washington Generals (I'll leave it to you to figure out which team is which)?

That way, they'd get to keep all of their precious monies.
I'll go for that, 600 players laid off...

oilexport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 12:59 PM
  #105
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Fehr would tell the players that the revenue disparity is so massive and that owners don't want to foot the bill for fixing their own mistakes (expansion, CBAs, bad contracts), so they just want to take it out of the players' share; while restricting player mobility to the point where the majority of them are locked in for the duration of their short careers.
How can Fehr tell the players that expansion was a mistake when 30% of the members get paid by so-called new teams?

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 01:44 PM
  #106
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,486
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by massivegoonery View Post
Why don't the Rangers and Leafs just tour the continent playing each other, like the Harlem Globetrotters and the Washington Generals (I'll leave it to you to figure out which team is which)?

That way, they'd get to keep all of their precious monies.
Well two teams is extreme but a league of 12 to16 and you're right on.

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 02:01 PM
  #107
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,947
vCash: 5792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
How can Fehr tell the players that expansion was a mistake when 30% of the members get paid by so-called new teams?
It doesn't have to be a mistake, but there are owners/markets who have proven that they do not allow the league to reach their potential growth.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 02:03 PM
  #108
Ewan McGregor
Registered User
 
Ewan McGregor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,919
vCash: 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
So it's the owners who deserve the blame for players missing craploads of money the will never get back?

Okay.
There's a reason why it's a lockout, not a strike.

Ewan McGregor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 02:06 PM
  #109
InjuredChoker
Registered User
 
InjuredChoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: LTIR or golf course
Posts: 17,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
And he has zero evidence that this would happen. He uses the NBA as a model? You only need 3 stars to win a championship because they play 75% of the game. At the end of this quote. he even showed why the NHL owners would never give Crosby that high of a hit.

The Pittsburgh owner would never give Crosby $12 million cap hit. It would severly limit his options to build a championship team. Success is more about depth than having a few stars like the NBA. The NBA has a 15 man roster limit, but only 12 active players for each game. Why would the NBA pay players good money for only 5-8 minutes a night? That would be like the NHL paying 4th liners millions per season. 4th liners will never get $2+ million contracts. The middle class in the NHL may get $250k-500k less per season with 5 year limits.



Why didn't this happen when the cap was introduced? Shouldn't the cap have prevented the "middle class" from growing since the superstar would take up 20% of the cap (max contracts)? Except this didn't happen in the NHL because you need depth to win. The superstars are the ones that lost the most with the last CBA, the "middle class" did the best for themselves. 5 year limits would hurt the top 5% and the "middle class" salaries will continue to grow the fastest.

How many superstars want to show how selfish they are by taking up 20% of the cap space? They will take less, like they have been for the past 7 years, to leave room for the "middle class".

Crosby could have demanded a max contract after his ELC ended and Pittsburgh would have payed it, but he didn't because he knew that there needed to be money available to build the team around him. Crosby will make way more money in endorsements than any "middle class" player ever could and it is outside the player's share of HRR. This is why Crosby will sacrifice for the team with this salary.
Brandon Prust..

InjuredChoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 02:07 PM
  #110
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GKJ View Post
It doesn't have to be a mistake, but there are owners/markets who have proven that they do not allow the league to reach their potential growth.
Ok, please give us some examples and what exactly they have done wrong?

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 02:16 PM
  #111
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,947
vCash: 5792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Ok, please give us some examples and what exactly they have done wrong?
Is Phoenix bombing because of player salaries, or because they have terrible attendance with a nuclear arena?

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 02:44 PM
  #112
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 21,763
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Ok, please give us some examples and what exactly they have done wrong?
Atlanta (never shoulve imploded, deliberate)
Tampa (until Viniks arrival)
Sunrise (until reorganization)
Dallas (lets see what Galiardi does)
Columbus (beyond incompetent for a decade)
Phoenix (where do you even start?)
Nashville (only in the last 2yrs respectable)
Edmonton (Katz going full-on Extortion)

Long list actually. And no, Im not suggesting any of these teams be Contracted or Relocated. But to suggest Ownership & Management's hands in any given market are clean is to completely ignore reality. Like a reporter searching for abuses at nursing homes, all one has to do with practically any given franchise, large or small is kick over a few rocks. Not pretty.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 03:06 PM
  #113
ottawah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
As far as we know, the so-called money issues are pretty much settled (give or take few changes).
I do not believe so. The limits to escrow is probably a huge concern to the owners as it can drive up the percentage paid to players.

ottawah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 03:29 PM
  #114
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ewan McGregor View Post
There's a reason why it's a lockout, not a strike.
At this point, it can be considered a strike just as much as a lockout. There was an offer on the table to get the players back on the ice. They refused to accept it, hence a strike.

Xref is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 03:32 PM
  #115
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 5,404
vCash: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyBowman View Post
What if your company released a press release last year and stated:

Best-ever business year highlighted by record revenue
Record Revenue - true.

What you also have to acknowledge however:

Record Player Cost.
Record Cost of doing business.
Combined with an annually decreasing share of those aforementioned record revenues.
Smallest share of total revenue since before the lockout.

Acknowledge THAT, and you then begin to understand the point of this lockout.

Were you expecting the PA to release a presser stating "Best ever business year.. Record total salaries collected!".
All you've got to ask yourself is... what was the point of that release?
To shoot them in the foot come the CBA?
Or to sell and drum up interest in sponsership and ownership groups that may be interested in investing?
Maybe you can understand why they didn't release a "Cost of doing business is at record levels!"


Last edited by DL44: 12-08-2012 at 03:38 PM.
DL44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 03:33 PM
  #116
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,901
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GKJ View Post
Is Phoenix bombing because of player salaries, or because they have terrible attendance with a nuclear arena?
Phoenix is a bad example, because the league is in all likelihood about the move them anyways, regardless of the CBA. But in fact, can't you say both have hurt them? I'm not really clear on what the case is that Phoenix would have better attendance with a better arena, or what in the hell ownership is supposed to even do to get that arena. They can't finance it themselves. It seems like they've been doing their utmost to get the taxpayers to pay for it for them.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 03:36 PM
  #117
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,901
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Atlanta (never shoulve imploded, deliberate)
Tampa (until Viniks arrival)
Sunrise (until reorganization)
Dallas (lets see what Galiardi does)
Columbus (beyond incompetent for a decade)
Phoenix (where do you even start?)
Nashville (only in the last 2yrs respectable)
Edmonton (Katz going full-on Extortion)

Long list actually. And no, Im not suggesting any of these teams be Contracted or Relocated. But to suggest Ownership & Management's hands in any given market are clean is to completely ignore reality. Like a reporter searching for abuses at nursing homes, all one has to do with practically any given franchise, large or small is kick over a few rocks. Not pretty.
This isn't a list of things that ownership did wrong, it's a list of teams. MOD


Last edited by Fugu: 12-09-2012 at 12:18 AM. Reason: then ask him to expand
haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 03:38 PM
  #118
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,901
vCash: 500
To answer the original question, he'll say: "see, boys? That's how I got you $200M. By giving away $1.9B."

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 03:38 PM
  #119
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kemisti View Post
Brandon Prust..
5 12 17 -1 156 pim 11:56 toi

Out of the 13 forwards that played more than 35 games, he averaged 10th in icetime (11th out of 13 in the playoffs). There's also a reason why he's not playing in New York. Montreal overpaid for something they felt they needed (his physicality).

I think most would look at him as a lower tier 3rd liner - but still a 3rd liner.

__________________
"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 03:45 PM
  #120
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,947
vCash: 5792
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Phoenix is a bad example, because the league is in all likelihood about the move them anyways, regardless of the CBA. But in fact, can't you say both have hurt them? I'm not really clear on what the case is that Phoenix would have better attendance with a better arena, or what in the hell ownership is supposed to even do to get that arena. They can't finance it themselves. It seems like they've been doing their utmost to get the taxpayers to pay for it for them.
Phoenix is not a bad example when you look at their history, including before they even got a team. It would have helped if they had better ownership even before this current mess. But it also would have helped if the market was ready to accept them - which they weren't.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 03:51 PM
  #121
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Phoenix is a bad example, because the league is in all likelihood about the move them anyways, regardless of the CBA. But in fact, can't you say both have hurt them? I'm not really clear on what the case is that Phoenix would have better attendance with a better arena, or what in the hell ownership is supposed to even do to get that arena. They can't finance it themselves. It seems like they've been doing their utmost to get the taxpayers to pay for it for them.
So why are you even talking about it.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 03:54 PM
  #122
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by predfan98 View Post
The world of professional sports is not a typical/normal real world business. I don't know why you would try and apply supply/demand here.

It's entertainment/sports with a union.......negotiating for how many people are going to sleep in a 4 or 5 star hotel when they travel out of town and get a stipend for meals.... yada,yada, yada.

sorry.........it's not real world economics. I don't get a tax payer subsidized place of employment, do you?
Yes it is. Profits, losses, margins are the same. It's only the NHL we're reality does not apply. You got a tax subsidized arena and so is your team to be honest. Sharing of profits does nothing because teams are still losing money. The cap floor needs to go to prevent this.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 03:54 PM
  #123
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
As far as we know, the so-called money issues are pretty much settled (give or take few changes).

The argument is about contract issues which have only indirect effects on players, in the end players will get the 50% which has been agreed upon.

So tell me this; how would the PA get back the money they will miss (1.89B) if the season is cancelled? It would mean they would need a deal that gets them 190M MORE than current NHL proposal EVERY season for the next 10 years (or even more if the next CBA is shorter than 10 years) to justify sitting out for the season.

What are the chances of owners caving to that extent that would make up for the money lost for the players?

When will the players see the light? How many players are actually willing to lose the season given that 70% of the contracts are up in 3 years?

What are the players fighting for? Long-term contracts given only to star players?

What does your average 3rd-4th line forward or 3rd pairing d-man gain from missing the season?

If the whole season is missed, who's the one to stand up and tell PA it wasn't worth it?
I've read this sentiment on EVERY SINGLE lockout thread on two boards.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 04:01 PM
  #124
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDeuce View Post
Maybe it's the tin-foil hat I'm wearing but I'm getting suspicious.

Here's the conspiracy theory:


Donald Fehr never intended to make any agreement with the League. His goal was to decertify the NHLPA. Reason? It's been threatened and semi-carried out in other leagues but has never been fully implemented. Perhaps because of too many unknowns, fear of failure, who knows. Perhaps Fehr (on behalf of all the other unionites in professional sport) wanted to use the NHLPA as a guinea pig to see where a decertification of a major-league sports union would end up.

After all, if you're going to do an experiment like this, may as well do it to the least-popular and least-relevant major league sport in the USA.



m.
And I think Bettman might be willing to offer the league as a guineau pig on this. No doubt the boys at Proskauer Rose want a test case on a league that doesn't matter to them

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 04:15 PM
  #125
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 15,537
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
Well two teams is extreme but a league of 12 to16 and you're right on.
So how is NHLPA leader Don Fehr going to convince his clients that half of them need to lose their jobs for the betterment of the league?

Ragamuffin Gunner 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 04:12 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.