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.

Lockout IV: One likes to believe in the freedom of hockey (Moderated: see post #2)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-12-2012, 12:20 AM
  #426
SidGenoMario
Registered User
 
SidGenoMario's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,412
vCash: 500
I'm assuming someone here's a Rush fan. At least there some good news this week.

SidGenoMario is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:21 AM
  #427
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
The Eternal Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,854
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
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.
I care little for the USA versus CAN argument, I think you know that

What is "your" NHL then? 10 teams? A regionalized league in the North East?

Again, no matter what, you are just moving the bottom line. You cannot possibly equalize the cities. You need a system to encourage parity for the good of the league. People want competition, it's the nature of sports, having a league without parity is a losing formula, no matter what. Nevermind the fact that you are going to lose tons of money and support by becoming a niche sport.

Holden Caulfield is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:23 AM
  #428
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 16,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
No, no, by all means, you said you were done and that it had been decided. Don't let me interrupt.
Can you not answer a simple question?

I said I wasn't adding to what has been posted about the contraction issue above not that, "I was done and that it had been decided."

Ragamuffin Gunner is online now  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:24 AM
  #429
The Last Baron*
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
I care little for the USA versus CAN argument, I think you know that

What is "your" NHL then? 10 teams? A regionalized league in the North East?
Pretty much...Fugu has a very radical concept for what the league should be compared to most.

The Last Baron* is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:26 AM
  #430
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twilight Sparkle View Post
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.
Redid your stuff

Using forbes' stuff here :
http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/
Revenue comes to 3.374b

With the last 6 teams removed, that brings revenue to 2.966b

2.966b-60m for pensions : 2.906b

2.906b*.57 : 1.656b for the players share

Over 24 teams, that brings the number to : 69.017m

Cap floor :
61m

Midpoint : 69m

Ceiling : 77m


If you want me to remove the teams losing the most money :

3.374b for revenues with 30 teams

Brings it to 2.874b

2.814b after pensions

1.638b for the players

cap would be :

Floor :
60.25m

Midpoint :
68.25m

Ceiling :
76.25m

edit :

Since the cap would rise 4 to 5 million, just sort by losses and then tack on another 4 - 5m.

13 teams losing money now.

Afterwards : 11

Not a good solution

Krishna is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:26 AM
  #431
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
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.
The NHL has been around longer than the NFL by 10 or so years, it has not happened. You're arguing in circles, probably on purpose, at this point. Like last time you're trying to whitewash this by saying the NHL is going to get that big TV deal or get bigger. It's not happening not when we keep having lockouts. MOD






~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


To the rest :The NBA does not have 30 teams so why does the NHL need them?


Last edited by Killion: 12-12-2012 at 12:45 AM. Reason: Lets not get personal...
Melrose Munch is online now  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:26 AM
  #432
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 29,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SidGenoMario View Post
I'm assuming someone here's a Rush fan. At least there some good news this week.
Pert was a Randist. He would not approve of all this revenue sharing and collective good stuff.

Fugu is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:28 AM
  #433
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
The Eternal Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,854
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
To the rest :The NBA does not have 30 teams so why does the NHL need them?
Well first, yes they do

But will ask again, what is the gain of contraction? How does it help?

Holden Caulfield is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:29 AM
  #434
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
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.
Limit losses. The PA can be broken as so many (not you) claim here. Drop the contraction, no escrow. I'm trying to keep a solution that's workable. The players need to give some more sadly, but the owners need to man up. Hockey has failed in some place and if the players won't lower their share threaten contraction.

Melrose Munch is online now  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:30 AM
  #435
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 29,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
I care little for the USA versus CAN argument, I think you know that

What is "your" NHL then? 10 teams? A regionalized league in the North East?

Again, no matter what, you are just moving the bottom line. You cannot possibly equalize the cities. You need a system to encourage parity for the good of the league. People want competition, it's the nature of sports, having a league without parity is a losing formula, no matter what. Nevermind the fact that you are going to lose tons of money and support by becoming a niche sport.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Last Baron View Post
Pretty much...Fugu has a very radical concept for what the league should be compared to most.
^^

Shush. I have never advocated for a ten team, NE regionalized NHL.


I think 20 teams would do it, and only about 4 of them would be in Canada. I risk derailing the thread because if I speak further, I'm going to smoke out all the Canadian traditionalists lurking here, some of the nontraditional fans (notice I didn't say all), and all the routine "the NHL is perfect with a cap at 30 teams" people who are already mad at me.

Carry on.

Fugu is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:31 AM
  #436
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
Well first, yes they do

But will ask again, what is the gain of contraction? How does it help?
Since when? I thought they had only 27?


EDIT: OK 30.

Contraction + Low Floor takes the big losers out and allows teams to make money. Mostly they should lower the floor by 20 million but contraction works as a threat.

Melrose Munch is online now  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:32 AM
  #437
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
But will ask again, what is the gain of contraction? How does it help?
If salaries remain linked to revenues, it doesn't help.

Crease is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:32 AM
  #438
The Last Baron*
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Pert was a Randist. He would not approve of all this revenue sharing and collective good stuff.

Ugh really?

That's disappointing.

Side note: I've read both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead- that was the first time I've ever had such contempt for an author's idealistic *expletive* that it strengthened my belief in the opposing viewpoint.

The Last Baron* is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:32 AM
  #439
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
The Eternal Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,854
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Limit losses. The PA can be broken as so many (not you) claim here. Drop the contraction, no escrow. I'm trying to keep a solution that's workable. The players need to give some more sadly, but the owners need to man up. Hockey has failed in some place and if the players won't lower their share threaten contraction.
Sigh. This is going in circles. All contraction does is move around where the losses go, then eat into the teams already making a profit or skirting even by raising the remaining teams salary.

Unless you think the PA can be broken completely by elimination of the floor AND a completely hard cap (not tied to revenues) at some really low number. I can't see that ever happening.

Holden Caulfield is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:34 AM
  #440
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Contraction + Low Floor takes the big losers out and allows teams to make money. Mostly they should lower the floor by 20 million but contraction works as a threat.
Lowering the floor will help only if aggregate Actual Club Salary remains constant.

Crease is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:35 AM
  #441
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
Sigh. This is going in circles. All contraction does is move around where the losses go, then eat into the teams already making a profit or skirting even by raising the remaining teams salary.

Unless you think the PA can be broken completely by elimination of the floor AND a completely hard cap (not tied to revenues) at some really low number. I can't see that ever happening.
OK.
Get rid of contraction, go with the low floor and no linkage. Lower the players share to 49-48 percent.

Melrose Munch is online now  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:35 AM
  #442
The Last Baron*
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
^^

Shush. I have never advocated for a ten team, NE regionalized NHL.


I think 20 teams would do it, and only about 4 of them would be in Canada. I risk derailing the thread because if I speak further, I'm going to smoke out all the Canadian traditionalists lurking here, some of the nontraditional fans (notice I didn't say all), and all the routine "the NHL is perfect with a cap at 30 teams" people who are already mad at me.

Carry on.
Hypothetical:

What if all seven prove to be more profitable than the bottom 10 franchises? If it's about keeping the league healthy, why sacrifice the financial health of the league by removing a strong Canadian market?

Purely hypothetical, of course. Under a new landscape we have no idea which mid-markets would flourish and which would drown.

(Quick guess- the four to survive are VAN, EDM, MTL, and TOR?)

The Last Baron* is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:37 AM
  #443
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
Lowering the floor will help only if aggregate Actual Club Salary remains constant.
I'm trying man, frankly if the owners will circumvent then there is nothing to be done.

Melrose Munch is online now  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:38 AM
  #444
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
OK.
Get rid of contraction, go with the low floor and no linkage. Lower the players share to 49-48 percent.
How do you lower the players share to a certain percent without a linkage mechanism?

Crease is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:38 AM
  #445
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
I'm trying man, frankly if the owners will circumvent then there is nothing to be done.
There are a lot of moving parts and I'm a stickler for detail.

Crease is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:39 AM
  #446
The Last Baron*
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,149
vCash: 500
BTW- cutting 10 teams? Not only would that result in 33% of NHLers losing their jobs, but you would be effectively killing hundreds (possibly thousands) of small business/eliminating thousands of NHL related jobs at the same time....all the while a move to 26 or at worst 24 teams is more than sufficient should contraction prove necessary.

*small businesses = merchants/restaurant & bar owners that only survive because of hockey.

The Last Baron* is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:41 AM
  #447
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,263
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
The NHL has been around longer than the NFL by 10 or so years, it has not happened. You're arguing in circles, probably on purpose, at this point. Like last time you're trying to whitewash this by saying the NHL is going to get that big TV deal or get bigger. It's not happening not when we keep having lockouts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To the rest :The NBA does not have 30 teams so why does the NHL need them?
It hasn't happened because the NHL was content for decades to wallow in their little six team small-potatoes niche milking their 19th century business model. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world and they STILL are trying to use the same 19th century business model. Hello!

I'm not arguing in circles I'm correcting a time-line that you have backwards. The NFL doesn't have their business model because their success allows them to have it, they have their success because the business model allows them to have it. The business model came first, before they had the success. The success came because they had the business model.

And btw, I never claimed to be "pro-business": I'm neither pro nor anti-business. I'm not pro-labor either. What I am is pro-HOCKEY. I want the sport to thrive and have success because I believe in the sport. I want a healthy, thriving league with a successful modern business model OFF the ice, and competitive balance ON the ice. I oppose anything that's preventing those things.


Last edited by Morgoth Bauglir: 12-12-2012 at 12:42 PM. Reason: qtd delete...
Morgoth Bauglir is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:46 AM
  #448
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
How do you lower the players share to a certain percent without a linkage mechanism?
Truth? Drop it drop now. No point in delaying it by 4 or 5 years. Hard Cap no linkage.

Melrose Munch is online now  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:50 AM
  #449
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Oh, thanks for letting me know that an official committee of sports economists has shot it down.
As compared to the official committee of sports economists who say it will work?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Lower the players share to 49-48 percent.
I wonder how many years the league will have to be locked out to get them to agree to that. We're already at half a season and they're just now approaching true 50/50.

Boltsfan2029 is offline  
Old
12-12-2012, 12:54 AM
  #450
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,987
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
It hasn't happened because the NHL was content for decades to wallow in their little six team small-potatoes niche milking their 19th century business model. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world and they STILL are trying to use the same 19th century business model. Hello!

I'm not arguing in circles I'm correcting a time-line that you have backwards. The NFL doesn't have their business model because their success allows them to have it, they have their success because the business model allows them to have it. The business model came first, before they had the success. The success came because they had the business model.

And btw, I never claimed to be "pro-business": I'm neither pro nor anti-business. I'm not pro-labor either. What I am is pro-HOCKEY. I want the sport to thrive and have success because I believe in the sport. I want a healthy, thriving league with a successful modern business model OFF the ice, and competitive balance ON the ice. I oppose anything that's preventing that opposes those things.
I can't remember how many times as a kid whenever there was an NFL promo that came on hearing the words, "On any given Sunday." It's why the NFL is a huge success. MLB is taking the opposite approach and their gate receipts show it. If not for some mega-dollar local TV deals in big markets MLB would be bleeding cash.

I think the prices paid for TV rights for MLB are ridiculous, especially the deal the Dodgers just got. Talk about a bubble.

KINGS17 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 01:30 PM.

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.