The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Lockout IV: One likes to believe in the freedom of hockey (Moderated: see post #2)
Let me clarify, Bob. If we were starting from scratch, I would say 50/50 is great. But, in this situation, one has to respect that the owners purchased Toronto and Montreal, for example, knowing they could print money at the gate. I am not sure it works to take 50% of that away now...
Well yeah. And I am NHL players signed their contracts with some expectation of this that and the other thing to.
Things change,
I'm getting sick and tired of NHL owners who have no ideas but for cutting players compensation and reducing their ability to get better deals.
Because a) it doesn't fix anything and b) we're letting billionaires fleece everyone
What's wrong with both? Get the correct system in place, have some RS, and we can have a healthy exciting league. So while the players would get paid less than now, the league would be stable. Once the league is stable, it can finally maximize it's growth - and at that point everyone makes money.
While I wasn't a fan of the NJ games (which sadly included the final) or the games my Penguins lost (yeah I know), I did enjoy almost all the other games I watched.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029
Can't we aim for both?
Guys it's not going to happen. Even if the owners get everything they want back right now we will still be in the same place in 2017. Choose one. Baseball chose, they have labor peace. NFL chose, they are popular.
Sure, but do you want parity or a healthy league? That's the question. Let the floor go and no one is losing money. Forcing a team to spend more then what a market or team can be is a losing proposition.
That only works in baseball because of the huge TV deals.
The NHL is a gate driven league, so lowering you salary (competitiveness) well below your competition will soon lead to empty buildings, which will mean you need to cut more and more salary until you eventually fold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu
Guys--- the system that's broken was instituted to save the 30 team league.
If you didn't have those 6-ish or so teams...... you wouldn't need that system.
Are you referring to the cap?
The cap is fine and great for the league. The HRR split and contract loopholes just need to be fixed.
And, contraction to save the league has been shot down in great detail above. I don't have anything to add on that subject.
Guys--- the system that's broken was instituted to save the 30 team league.
If you didn't have those 6-ish or so teams...... you wouldn't need that system.
How so? You bring back the 04 system that had teams moving and filing for bankruptcy every year? And the lower end became glorified farm teams? That's better?
__________________
2012 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS LA KINGS!!! GO JETS GO!
The cap is fine and great for the league. The HRR split and contract loopholes just need to be fixed.
And, contraction to save the league has been shot down in great detail above. I don't have anything to add on that subject.
Oh, thanks for letting me know that an official committee of sports economists has shot it down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield
How so? You bring back the 04 system that had teams moving and filing for bankruptcy every year? And the lower end became glorified farm teams? That's better?
Fine the "95" system that saw Winnipeg, Quebec and Hartford move almost immediately and Edmonton, Ottawa go into bankruptcy right after as well in a 26 team league (which was without 3 of the current/recent past oft attacked in ATL, CBS, NSH).
Simply moving the bottom line does nothing, IMO. I've yet to see an argument on how it ever will make a difference, other than getting rid of teams certain people don't like and making different teams the bottom teams that will bleed money and therefore be the attacked teams.
Guys--- the system that's broken was instituted to save the 30 team league.
If you didn't have those 6-ish or so teams...... you wouldn't need that system.
Contract those 6 teams and you slash total player salary by roughly 20% or 310 million per year. (the total salary of the contracted teams)
New cap midpoint would be 63 million instead of 61 million (assuming 57% HRR split). Players would pocket 2 extra millions per remaining team (2 * 26) = 52 million.
Moral of the story: the NHL is subsidizing player salaries with the old structure. Players would lose over a billion with contraction over 10 years. Since the NHL teams are largely flat when it comes to revenue (save the top 6 or so teams) then contraction is a bad game to play for everyone and it's why that word isn't coming out of the PA.
Solution: 50-50 split. League grows to 36 teams by 2022, players win across the board, owners make money, everyone is happy.
How so? You bring back the 04 system that had teams moving and filing for bankruptcy every year? And the lower end became glorified farm teams? That's better?
Contraction
Lower the or eliminate the floor
Hard Cap.
That's not 2004 it's also not now. Everyone has to give.
That only works in baseball because of the huge TV deals.
The NHL is a gate driven league, so lowering you salary (competitiveness) well below your competition will soon lead to empty buildings, which will mean you need to cut more and more salary until you eventually fold.
Are you referring to the cap?
The cap is fine and great for the league. The HRR split and contract loopholes just need to be fixed.
And, contraction to save the league has been shot down in great detail above. I don't have anything to add on that subject.
Contract those 6 teams and you slash total player salary by roughly 20% or 310 million per year. (the total salary of the contracted teams)
New cap midpoint would be 63 million instead of 61 million (assuming 57% HRR split). Players would pocket 2 extra millions per remaining team (2 * 26) = 52 million.
Moral of the story: the NHL is subsidizing player salaries with the old structure. Players would lose over a billion with contraction over 10 years. Since the NHL teams are largely flat when it comes to revenue (save the top 6 or so teams) then contraction is a bad game to play for everyone and it's why that word isn't coming out of the PA.
Solution: 50-50 split. League grows to 36 teams by 2022, players win across the board, owners make money, everyone is happy.
Your system is flawed in that you think the teams all have even revenue streams.
Taking the bottom 6 hour would probably only maybe 150-200m in revenue.
That would raise the midpoint to just about 68m. Floor would be 60m and ceiling would be 76m
Contraction
Lower the or eliminate the floor
Hard Cap.
That's not 2004 it's also not now. Everyone has to given.
The PA agrees to this? The PA will certainly not ever allow the floor to go away. All the restrictions of a hard cap with no protection of floor? Sure if players salaries are still tied to revenue they cannot go down, but if too many teams are using the low end, then the owners have to pay out a bunch of escrow bonuses anyways, thereby losing the advantage of having no floor, while not getting any of the revenue of having a competitive team.
But let's ignore that for a second. Why the contraction? If there's no floor, there should be no problems right? That's the whole idea of getting rid of the floor.
Why are the owners of the contracted franchises walking away from franchises worth 100's of millions of dollars, even when they lose money? Are the other owners paying them off? So not only are their expenses going to up since the cap will go up (if still tied to revenues), but now the other owners have pay to buyout teams?
That's lose-lose-lose proposition, the owners, players and fans suffer.
Contract those 6 teams and you slash total player salary by roughly 20% or 310 million per year. (the total salary of the contracted teams)
New cap midpoint would be 63 million instead of 61 million (assuming 57% HRR split). Players would pocket 2 extra millions per remaining team (2 * 26) = 52 million.
Moral of the story: the NHL is subsidizing player salaries with the old structure. Players would lose over a billion with contraction over 10 years. Since the NHL teams are largely flat when it comes to revenue (save the top 6 or so teams) then contraction is a bad game to play for everyone and it's why that word isn't coming out of the PA.
Solution: 50-50 split. League grows to 36 teams by 2022, players win across the board, owners make money, everyone is happy.
No, no, no..... we'd get rid of all this linkage/cap nonsense in this hypothetical league.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield
Fine the "95" system that saw Winnipeg, Quebec and Hartford move almost immediately and Edmonton, Ottawa go into bankruptcy right after as well in a 26 team league (which was without 3 of the current/recent past oft attacked in ATL, CBS, NSH).
Simply moving the bottom line does nothing, IMO. I've yet to see an argument on how it ever will make a difference, other than getting rid of teams certain people don't like and making different teams the bottom teams that will bleed money and therefore be the attacked teams.
Well, in "my" hypothetical NHL, we probably wouldn't have had some of those small Cdn teams in the league in the first place, and certainly not some of the smaller US cities. I'm fair like that.
It's not happening. What part don't you get? Do I have to spell it out or hold your hand? There is no demand for anything more then 300m yr!
Do you think the NFL just popped out of the ether as a big-time operation? Hell no. When the NFL started out they weren't even a blip on the sports map. They MADE themselves into the sports juggernaut that they now are. How did they do it? With their business model off the field and competitive balance (read parity) on the field. They didn't do it by flushing their credibility with contraction and saying "we're content to be a minor league with 6-12 teams confined to the Rust Belt". They didn't do it by promoting a product where 3 or 4 teams monopolize all the top players and share the title amongst themselves at the expense of the rest.
