HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Lockout continues Part V - Hockey cancelled till January 14th

View Poll Results: OWNERS OR PLAYERS, who do you support
owners 75 62.50%
players 45 37.50%
Voters: 120. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-21-2012, 10:33 AM
  #751
Liferleafer
RIP Mrs Doubtfire
 
Liferleafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christ View Post
How much do you want to bet that if the season were cancelled they would take a long break from negociating and not seriously start up again until it matters at the start of next season when it starts cutting into that season as well...seems to be the way the NHL and NHLPA do things these days.
I'll admit, i'm done taking sides anymore as both Fehr and Bettman haved dropped the ball here. I do however believe that if Bettman kills the season for the sake of 10 owners, the other 20 are not going to allow him to risk next year as well. The same can be said for Fehr, if these ludicrous stall tactics for the sake of the top tier players cost all players a years salary....he's done as well.

Liferleafer is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 11:12 AM
  #752
Budsfan
Registered User
 
Budsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,545
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
Some data for perspective on teams viability.

TeamDivPointsTotal Attendance Per Game% CapacityAvg Ticket $
PHOENIXPAC97509,24112,42072.536.15
DALLASPAC89583,30614,22676.829.95
COLUMBUSCEN65601,06114,66080.847.95
NY ISLANDERSATL79540,83813,19181.349.06
CAROLINASE82657,74716,04285.941.58
COLORADONW88635,44015,49886.140.62
ANAHEIMPAC80605,17114,76086.436.94
FLORIDASE94681,76316,62886.655.67
NEW JERSEYATL102631,25815,39687.445.86
TAMPA BAYSE84757,19218,46896.237.73
NASHVILLECEN104684,32416,69097.551.04
ST. LOUISCEN109771,20718,80998.241.57
MINNESOTANW81728,68317,77298.462.63
BUFFALONE89760,55818,55099.938.25
WINNIPEGSE84615,16415,00410098.27
EDMONTONNW74690,39916,83910070.13
SAN JOSEPAC96720,07617,56210049.73
BOSTONNE102720,14517,56410058.94
LOS ANGELESPAC95734,73617,92010051.92
NY RANGERSATL109745,85218,19110066.20
CALGARYNW90790,84919,28910068.18
MONTRÉALNE78872,19321,27310088.67
DETROITCEN102824,70620,114100.753.28
OTTAWANE92793,61219,356101.155.51
WASHINGTONSE92758,74618,506101.362.42
VANCOUVERNW111774,25018,884102.568.38
PITTSBURGHATL108761,22418,566102.763.06
TORONTONE80799,78619,506103.7123.77
CHICAGOCEN101882,87421,53310555.72
PHILADELPHIAATL103837,75420,433107.466.89

If local economies are in the tank you can see why some teams have to price their product so cheaply.

The question is whether that is a permanent situation, or is it a blip. Look at Buffalo, good attendance but one of the lowest prices.

Winnipeg has an undersized arena's and charges a premium for their product.
Are we the strongest economy in this hemisphere, or are we just being gouged because we are dedicated Leaf fans.

I might add we are being gouged by both players and owners.

Budsfan is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 11:46 AM
  #753
hockeyfanz
Registered User
 
hockeyfanz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
Fans who want to keep a 30 team league and like the idea of growing the game seem to support the owners.

Fans that think the league should contract and just stay in the more traditional hockey markets seem to support the players.

So I think all these arguments we do about who's "greedier" and such are beside the point. For the players and owners, this lockout is about money. For us fans, it's more about which nhl we'd like better.

I personally would just really like a league where success is created primarily by intelligent management decisions, not financial advantages.
You call the league "anti-competitive". But it's just as competitive as before. The only difference is that the teams must now compete using intelligent management decisions, not bidding wars.
That's a far superior league, in my opinion.
DO...thats simply untrue. I don't support either side. Couldn't care less. I do understand that it is a business and therefore the investors in the businesses will want to be profitable. What an obscene idea eh? I do support contraction because at the end of the day, the fan is the benefactor of contraction. Less teams means less players make the NHL, means better hockey theoretically...You can't tell me as a fan of the Leafs, that you give a crap if Phoenix or NYI or Nashville or whoever is in financial dire straits, keeps their teams. Who cares? The people of those cities don't care or they wouldn't be in financial ruin. Why should I?

Nothing wrong with a 24 team league...Would be fine.

hockeyfanz is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 12:18 PM
  #754
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 56,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfanz View Post
DO...thats simply untrue. I don't support either side. Couldn't care less. I do understand that it is a business and therefore the investors in the businesses will want to be profitable. What an obscene idea eh? I do support contraction because at the end of the day, the fan is the benefactor of contraction. Less teams means less players make the NHL, means better hockey theoretically...You can't tell me as a fan of the Leafs, that you give a crap if Phoenix or NYI or Nashville or whoever is in financial dire straits, keeps their teams. Who cares? The people of those cities don't care or they wouldn't be in financial ruin. Why should I?

Nothing wrong with a 24 team league...Would be fine.
Is anyone really supporting the existence of Phoenix over getting an agreement with the players?

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA3LN_8hjM8.

Vaive and Ludzik on collapse, and Phaneuf.
ULF_55 is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 12:24 PM
  #755
Jerkini
Registered User
 
Jerkini's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,410
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
Is anyone really supporting the existence of Phoenix over getting an agreement with the players?
Considering how hard the NHL has fought to keep Phoenix alive, it was surprising to me how little fanfare Atlanta's relocation to Winnipeg had. No one even remembers Atlanta anymore. And I imagine no one will remember Phoenix.

Jerkini is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 12:55 PM
  #756
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,357
vCash: 500
good article that was posted on habs forum:
http://business.time.com/2012/12/19/...e-nhl-lockout/

do not read if you think PA is at fault ;o

uiCk is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 02:32 PM
  #757
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 60,573
vCash: 500
Two players have confirmed to TSN that the NHL Players' Association's membership voted overwhelmingly on Friday to give the union the power to file a disclaimer of interest by Jan. 2. The NHLPA's executive board now has the option of dissolving their union - which would allow players to file a class-action anti-trust lawsuit against the league. Full Story.

__________________
Signature: There is no greater demonstration of Fan patience then to suggest to "Play the Kids " and be willing to accept the consequences of those actions..
Mess is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 02:45 PM
  #758
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 56,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk View Post
good article that was posted on habs forum:
http://business.time.com/2012/12/19/...e-nhl-lockout/

do not read if you think PA is at fault ;o
Quote:
But we’ve known for a while that the way mature owners and strong commissioners have to deal with this imbalance is to share revenues between teams. Practically, this allows all teams to be competitive, ensuring a consistent and popular product. Philosophically, this recognizes the we’re-all-in-this-together aspect of professional sports leagues, one of the more curious economic constructs in history. It’s not a coincidence that the most successful North American sports league also has the most rational approach to revenue sharing. Some 60% of the NFL’s $11 billion revenue pie is shared, which is why tiny Green Bay, Wisconsin can compete with big bad New York or Chicago. The other two Big Three leagues aren’t quite as egalitarian but have improved their models in recent years: MLB teams share nearly a third of local TV revenue, while NBA teams reportedly approach a 50% total revenue share (give or take a few complex calculations).

The NHL, meanwhile, has been sharing 4.5% of its $3.3 billion revenue (with not much more on the table in current talks.)

So greed is the issue, alright: owners’ greed, specifically owners in larger markets who refuse to recognize that sports leagues are in many ways socialist enterprises, in which the needs of the many fat cats should outweigh the few obese cats. At least if the obese cats want to keep purring.
Read more: http://business.time.com/2012/12/19/...#ixzz2FimlbN3L

I'm surprised at how little revenue sharing there is in the NHL. Someone should suggest they increase it.

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 02:46 PM
  #759
van Riemsdyk
Registered User
 
van Riemsdyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Etobicoke, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 22
vCash: 500
OT: Best case scenario...

...now that the cancellation of the session looks immanent. The weaker teams fold and file for bankruptcy. In-part reducing the League to twenty-somewhat teams, the excess players either join existing teams like the Leafs or go off to play in other leagues. And the Leafs get better players and high draft pick.

Sorry if this is in the wrong section.

van Riemsdyk is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 02:48 PM
  #760
ACC1224
Steelers 5 - 3
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: vs. Ravens
Posts: 28,884
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by van Riemsdyk View Post
...now that the lockout looks immanent. The weaker teams fold and file for bankruptcy. In-part reducing the League to twenty-somewhat teams, the excess players either join existing teams like the Leafs or go off to play in other leagues. And the Leafs get better players and high draft pick.

Sorry if this is in the wrong section.
The lockout has been going on for months.

ACC1224 is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 02:49 PM
  #761
van Riemsdyk
Registered User
 
van Riemsdyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Etobicoke, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 22
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACC1224 View Post
The lockout has been going on for months.
My bad, I meant to say the cancellation of the session.

van Riemsdyk is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 02:52 PM
  #762
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 60,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
Read more: http://business.time.com/2012/12/19/...#ixzz2FimlbN3L

I'm surprised at how little revenue sharing there is in the NHL. Someone should suggest they increase it.
Fehr working on it for the betterment of the NHL, fighting for his players and small market teams best interest.

Quote:
It drives home one of the key points NHL Players’ Association executive Donald Fehr and his negotiators have made throughout the lockout – the path to financial health for all 30 teams is through increased revenue sharing. It is not something the wealthy teams are interested in, although the NHL reportedly is close to an agreement with the union on a revenue-sharing plan that would see around $230-million redistributed annually, an increase of about 53 per cent from the $150-million under the former collective agreement.

However, that represents only about 7 per cent of the $3.3-billion the NHL brought in during the 2011-12 season. Major League Baseball, which found prosperity with greater revenue sharing thanks to the prodding of Fehr when he was head of that sport’s union, sees its rich teams put 31 per cent of their local revenue into a fund shared by the poorer relations.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle5764143/
Fehr improved baseball and now is attempting to apply those same revenue sharing principles to the NHL to provide stability and avoid these lockouts in the future for Owners crying poor.

Mess is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 02:55 PM
  #763
ACC1224
Steelers 5 - 3
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: vs. Ravens
Posts: 28,884
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by van Riemsdyk View Post
My bad, I meant to say the cancellation of the session.
They haven't cancelled sessions, they're still talking.

ACC1224 is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 03:03 PM
  #764
Sterling31
Takin' Over
 
Sterling31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oshawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,494
vCash: 500
Base case scenario.

The fans get to watch the best players in the world play against each other on a regular basis, no matter the league.

Sterling31 is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 03:03 PM
  #765
van Riemsdyk
Registered User
 
van Riemsdyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Etobicoke, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 22
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACC1224 View Post
They haven't cancelled sessions, they're still talking.
Hopefully it doesn't happen, but Bettman said he couldn't see themselves not canceling if they don't reach a deal by mid January and at least have a 48 game session.

What I think might happen is the NHLPA voted to authorize the power to file a disclaimer of interest if need be. Which I think they will do and it will go over that deadline.

van Riemsdyk is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 03:07 PM
  #766
Morguee
That's Mind-boggling
 
Morguee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
Read more: http://business.time.com/2012/12/19/...#ixzz2FimlbN3L

I'm surprised at how little revenue sharing there is in the NHL. Someone should suggest they increase it.
I'm not sure it is that easy. It is a scale of economies. If the league has revenue of $1000 and profits of $200 then it is easier to share say 60% of it and everybody makes money. However, if the league makes $300 and profits $30 it makes it tougher for the teams making money to share that via 60%.

There are too few teams making money or rather too many losing it for revenue sharing to fix the problem. The large TV contracts(both local and national) have gone a long way in the MLB and NFL to make the owners more willing to share.

Morguee is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 03:15 PM
  #767
rumman
Registered User
 
rumman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,086
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
If the poor teams don't make an effort to acquire star players, they will lose the little fans they have.
In order for the poor teams to acquire star players, they compete against the rich teams who have enough money to offer very large contracts.
The poor teams are then forced to spend money they don't have in order to acquire star players so as to not lose their fans.

And that is the precise reason that a cap needs to be in place. It gives the non hockey market teams a fighting chance to be competitive and grow their fan base.
Maybe having a team that can't pay their players isn't a good idea, either move said team to a market that can sustain a NHL franchise or contract the league, its retarded to base league revenues around teams that are in unviable markets. This isn't the player's fault, it's Bettmans.

rumman is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 03:43 PM
  #768
ULF_55
Global Moderator
 
ULF_55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mountain Standard Ti
Posts: 56,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morguee View Post
I'm not sure it is that easy. It is a scale of economies. If the league has revenue of $1000 and profits of $200 then it is easier to share say 60% of it and everybody makes money. However, if the league makes $300 and profits $30 it makes it tougher for the teams making money to share that via 60%.

There are too few teams making money or rather too many losing it for revenue sharing to fix the problem. The large TV contracts(both local and national) have gone a long way in the MLB and NFL to make the owners more willing to share.
The trouble is teams do not have to provide audited financial statements to prove their claims of losses.

Quote:
the NHL Players Association caved, agreeing to lower its members’ share of revenue to 57%. Peace and harmony have ensued since, but now the owners want an even bigger piece of the pie, claiming financial hardship.

Don’t believe them, not for a minute. First, as I’ve written about before, sports team accounting is misleading at best, given that club owners can claim to be losing money when a) the losses are on paper only; b) there are tax benefits from whatever losses happen to be real; and c) the value of their teams continue to rise.
Read more: http://business.time.com/2012/12/19/...#ixzz2Fj1HyQgV

ULF_55 is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 03:58 PM
  #769
Morguee
That's Mind-boggling
 
Morguee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
The trouble is teams do not have to provide audited financial statements to prove their claims of losses.



Read more: http://business.time.com/2012/12/19/...#ixzz2Fj1HyQgV
There is some manipulation of revenue but that is to be expected. I don't think anyone should consider the ability to write of the tax benefits as a good thing. This only means the owners have other businesses that are making money. Any business person worth their salt would rather have all their businesses making subtantial profits and paying taxes rather than having the "luxury" of being able to write off one business loss against anothers profit.

The increase in franchise value is like the housing market and just like the housing market it is starting to bust in Phoenix. The Maple Leafs will never be worth more than what Bell/Rogers paid for MLSE because of the circumstances. They needed media to fill their other products and that is what they were buying. There is not many(any) other businesses in Canada where this need existed with the financial backing to make iot happen.

The teams do make money from hockey that may not be considered HRR but the players also make money from hockey that does not count against the cap(sponsorship deals).

While the players may not make as much money there are teams out there that will actually lose money and the owners other businesses may not be making enough to make the losses "beneficial" to them.

...like to continue but it is 5 pm EST and the holidays just started!


Last edited by Morguee: 12-21-2012 at 04:00 PM. Reason: got to go.
Morguee is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 04:05 PM
  #770
anderson3133
Registered User
 
anderson3133's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Kitchener
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rumman View Post
Maybe having a team that can't pay their players isn't a good idea, either move said team to a market that can sustain a NHL franchise or contract the league, its retarded to base league revenues around teams that are in unviable markets. This isn't the player's fault, it's Bettmans.
As someone who is pro-NHLPA, the "fault" rests on no one particular party more than the other.

Players want jobs, that means the NHL must expand.

Where I do find some fault, though, is where the NHL refuses to explore other avenues of cost re-structuring. They keep going back to the same well; the players and their incomes.

If the NHL explored other programs like better redistribution, re-structuring the NHL schedule to have better/more rivalry games, having a cap on management team fees, having playoff games at a larger venue (like the Superbowl with higher ticket prices), etc. I wouldn't find fault in their current debacle.


Last edited by anderson3133: 12-21-2012 at 04:11 PM.
anderson3133 is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 04:12 PM
  #771
ACC1224
Steelers 5 - 3
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: vs. Ravens
Posts: 28,884
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by anderson3133 View Post
As someone who is pro-NHLPA, the "fault" rests on no one particular party more than the other.

Players want jobs, that means the NHL must expand.

Where I do find some fault, though, is where the NHL refuses to explore other avenues of cost re-structuring. They keep going back to the same well; the players and their incomes.

If the NHL explored other programs like better redistribution, re-structuring the NHL schedule to have better/more rivalry games, having a cap on management team fees, having playoff games at a larger venue (like the Superbowl with higher ticket prices),etc. I wouldn't find fault in their current debacle.
As a Subscriber I'd say NO to the bolded.

ACC1224 is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 04:15 PM
  #772
anderson3133
Registered User
 
anderson3133's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Kitchener
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACC1224 View Post
As a Subscriber I'd say NO to the bolded.
Fair enough, I'm just getting creative with examples.

I wouldn't be against some creativity on their end.

anderson3133 is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 04:19 PM
  #773
rumman
Registered User
 
rumman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,086
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by anderson3133 View Post
As someone who is pro-NHLPA, the "fault" rests on no one particular party more than the other.

Players want jobs, that means the NHL must expand.

Where I do find some fault, though, is where the NHL refuses to explore other avenues of cost re-structuring. They keep going back to the same well; the players and their incomes.

If the NHL explored other programs like better redistribution, re-structuring the NHL schedule to have better/more rivalry games, having a cap on management team fees, having playoff games at a larger venue (like the Superbowl with higher ticket prices), etc. I wouldn't find fault in their current debacle.
sadly, if the NHL cannot find viable markets for it's product, less teams are needed, therefore less players, no industry is based on supporting it's workforce before it's product, that's ridiculous, better to grow the product in viable markets and hope that the product's quality is such that expansion into other markets is a profitable option.

rumman is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 04:28 PM
  #774
anderson3133
Registered User
 
anderson3133's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Kitchener
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rumman View Post
sadly, if the NHL cannot find viable markets for it's product, less teams are needed, therefore less players, no industry is based on supporting it's workforce before it's product, that's ridiculous, better to grow the product in viable markets and hope that the product's quality is such that expansion into other markets is a profitable option.
Without a doubt. However, it's not at that point anymore.

Players don't want to lose their jobs and owners don't want to lose their investments. Tapping the same well every time will not produce long-term benefits for either party.

anderson3133 is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 04:49 PM
  #775
RogerRoeper*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 21,694
vCash: 500
Let's hope some of the teams the Leafs are supporting do die.

RogerRoeper* 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 04:55 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.