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.

When the NHL cancels the season, Fehr will Fight to Repeal the Cap

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-21-2012, 03:34 PM
  #76
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 753
vCash: 500
I'm all for getting rid of the salary cap. It's WAY too much math for such a stupid sport. KISS!!!

Xref is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:34 PM
  #77
moosehead81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Great White North
Country: Canada
Posts: 840
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
Get rid of the cap, fine....

then get rid of guaranteed contracts

The ultimate pay for play sport is golf. Perform and you get paid. Suck and you starve. Would love to see the NHLPA try and do this.
I keep hearing about non-guaranteed contracts, even from supposedly smart sports journalists. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I negotiate my contract on an individual basis, wouldn't I ensure there's some guarantees in the event I get cut? Maybe not to the extent of my full contracted salary but certainly something? Pretty sure even a journeyman player would ensure he's getting something should he be cut in the middle of a season.

moosehead81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:40 PM
  #78
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number8 View Post
I agree with much of your post. However, you cannot argue that these players are not special. They have talents and abilities that the vast majority of hockey players do not have.

I would not pay $75 to go and see Ed Jones play if Ed were an average beer league player.

It's the same reason George Clooney gets paid the money he gets paid for a movie. As much as I'd like to claim otherwise, I'm not George. Although I am very very charming and handsome!!! (joke)
Not sure how that plays into what I said at all. No salary cap only benefits the top tier of players, it hurts the lower tier of players. The majority of the league (which does not fall into the 'top tier' category) is better off WITH a salary cap.

I am not arguing that players should not be paid well, I am saying that they should not be paid more than the league can afford. Most teams are losing money or just breaking even, the league as a whole can not afford to spend more on players. If the players were smart they would realize that a more profitable league means owners willing to invest more money in their teams, which will put more money in their pockets in the long run.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nab77 View Post
And lose the the capital you've invested in it? Why not run it on 20M budget and make some money?
What you are talking about is called sunk cost, and every successful businessman knows all about sunk cost. You do not invest more money into a losing enterprise just because of the money you have already spent on it. Sunk cost is one of the most important basic's you learn when you study business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laus Deo View Post
The risk for putting their health on the line is what you are conveniently disregarding.

The contract is "I will work my tail off, I will fight, I will block shots, I will break orbital bones, vertebrae, femurs, tibias, feet, toe and ankle bones, hands, arms, noses, lose teeth, skin. Be hit, bruised, lose eye sight and incurr brain damage." There are other things that they give up far beyond the scope of this message board.

For all that would you not expect to be fairly compensated?

You are probably one of the ones who'd do it for free.
Again, I am not saying the players do not deserve to make a lot of money (make no mistake, no matter how this turns out the players will still be making more money than most of us will ever dream of). If the players fear an injury risk then they should invest in insurance (as the owners do), they should fight to change to rules (to limit the chances) etc, but asking for money from a league that can not afford it is a short term solution that will be devastating long term.

The owners are only concerned about getting the most return for their investment (if they are a competent owner). The players health only factors into that as far as it effects profitability. The owners are absorbing all of the financial risk (money invested vs money returned).

The players health is a big concern of mine, but it is a different topic. You can try to link the two all you like, but I guarantee the owners do not, and never will. The owners are never going to sit down at a table and say "maybe they are right, we should give them more money just in case they get injured". Does your boss do that where you work? Do you sit down at your company review and say "I deserve more money because I might get hurt"? I know what you will say "But policeman and fireman and demolitions people get exactly that!" Yes, that's true, but these are people who are risking their lives on a daily basis in a field where they are still paid nowhere near what professional athletes are and where candidates are scarce. As a whole the players already make a LOT of money, and the owners are going to see it as the players responsibility to insure their own financial security.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:41 PM
  #79
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosehead81 View Post
Nor will the new owners of the Jets who are likely thinking "what the hell did we buy last year?", nor will the Canucks, Penguins, Leafs, Flyers, Canadiens, Sabres, etc.. Sure would be interesting to listen in on their teleconferences, assuming some-one has the balls to stand up to Bettman and his cronies. What a fiasco this has turned out to be.
For sure. I honestly think a split is coming...

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:43 PM
  #80
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMT21 View Post
Fehr can try to eliminate the cap all he wants........ but no salary cap will surely see the elimination of guaranteed contracts..... no question about it. The two will never go hand in hand again.

The top 6-7 teams would likely boost their payrolls in the 100M range but the bottom feeders will drop their payrolls maybe as low as 30M. Those teams will have an almost impossible task of signing any guys with higher than 2nd / 3rd line talent.

Not gonna happen.
But they'll make money.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:45 PM
  #81
Number8
Registered User
 
Number8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
I am not arguing that players should not be paid well, I am saying that they should not be paid more than the league can afford. Most teams are losing money or just breaking even, the league as a whole can not afford to spend more on players. If the players were smart they would realize that a more profitable league means owners willing to invest more money in their teams, which will put more money in their pockets in the long run.
I agree. However, my issue is that the "league" as a whole is doing quite well.

My argument is simply that the solution is likely one that requires both the players and the owners to give. Owners need to get serious about revenue sharing.

To me, it seems the owners solution right now is to have the players come down to the lowest common denominator to ensure that Phoenix et al survive and prosper while Boston, Toronto and others get an exceedingly richer by consuming by far the largest share of the pie of anyone.

Number8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:46 PM
  #82
Soundwave
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,185
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Guarantee?
PA's offer, by any reasonable expectation, gets the owners to 50-50 by year 5.
Early on, thanks to the escrow clause, the owners will probably even pay more than 57 percent, because the owners' lockout is causing serious damage to revenues.

But revenues can bounce back quickly.
LOL, the NBA CBA got the owners to 50-50 right away. The NFLPA has been below 50 for years.

NHL owners should wait 5 years. What a generous offer from Fehr. And the players are crying about the terrible system they're in.

NHL players are the most irrelevant sports figures in the west, yet they continually end up scoring some of the best collective bargaining agreements. Pretty sweet deal.

Soundwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:48 PM
  #83
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,178
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
What do consider canceling a season? That's the ultimate scorched earth policy.

That's Bettman's call. Not Fehr. Fehr wqas hired to get the best deal possible and if that meant losing a season, the players were and are fine with it. Nothing they (players) have done thus far tells me otherwise



At this point, what does Fehr get if the owners accepted the PA's offer?

Squat. I don't believe Fehr thinks an offer full of concessions after 3 months of missed paychecks is a good benefit... Do you?
It's not the fact that they are conceding. I think Fehr and everyone else knows that they are going to concede.

It's the amount of conceding they are not willing to give in to now. Only to be asked to give more in 5 or 10 years because thsi CBA is not going to correct what ails the NHL.

I think any smart poster here can agree that the current system offered by the NHL will not fix the revenue disparity and if the players give in each time, last time was a 24% roll back and a Cap. this time it's contracting issues, what's it going to be next time.

If you give a dog a snack for every good deed he does, he will continue to do that.

If you capitulate in every contract negotiation with the Owners, you are training them to think that you will continue to capitulate on every CBA.

At some point the cycle has to break to get an EQUAL partnership.

It's always darkest before dawn.

pld459666 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:53 PM
  #84
Soundwave
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,185
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
It's not the fact that they are conceding. I think Fehr and everyone else knows that they are going to concede.

It's the amount of conceding they are not willing to give in to now. Only to be asked to give more in 5 or 10 years because thsi CBA is not going to correct what ails the NHL.

I think any smart poster here can agree that the current system offered by the NHL will not fix the revenue disparity and if the players give in each time, last time was a 24% roll back and a Cap. this time it's contracting issues, what's it going to be next time.

If you give a dog a snack for every good deed he does, he will continue to do that.

If you capitulate in every contract negotiation with the Owners, you are training them to think that you will continue to capitulate on every CBA.

At some point the cycle has to break to get an EQUAL partnership.

It's always darkest before dawn.
Yeah almost like some kind of .... 50-50 split

Sure the players are giving, the previous CBAs were a gong show where the players were allowed to run rampant. They were getting something like 70% of hockey revenue in the pre-cap days which was ridiculous.

A child that gets to eat candy for dinner and stay up until 12 AM on school nights is "giving" if their parents put their foot down and make them eat a normal dinner and go to bed at a reasonable hour.

Soundwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:53 PM
  #85
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number8 View Post
I agree. However, my issue is that the "league" as a whole is doing quite well.

My argument is simply that the solution is likely one that requires both the players and the owners to give. Owners need to get serious about revenue sharing.

To me, it seems the owners solution right now is to have the players come down to the lowest common denominator to ensure that Phoenix et al survive and prosper while Boston, Toronto and others get an exceedingly richer by consuming by far the largest share of the pie of anyone.
Revenue sharing is fine, while a bit un-capitolist. The issue is that the profitable owners are saying "Why should I give my profits to an owner who is clearly less competent than I? Do I get a say in their teams operations?" and while obviously it is slightly more complicated than that (geography alone) it still stands. That owner would argue "Well why did you buy a team in a city that wouldn't make money then?". Point being if the owners are willing to revenue share great, but it comes at a cost as well.

Let's say for instance (just simple made up numbers) the top 25% of teams are bringin in $200m in profit. Now lets say that 25% of the league is losing money at an equal rate of -$200m (and the rest of the league is breaking even). Should the top profiting teams hand that $200m over to the bottom 25%? If they did, what motivation do they really have to be profitable in the first place? Wouldn't it be easier for them to spend that money to benefit themselves so that it's not available to be 'taken' at the end of the season? It's not as simple as it sounds like.

Also, The league is making quite a bit of money (about $3b I believe) but that is not profit.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:55 PM
  #86
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029 View Post
He can certainly go after the cap, just as long as he's willing to cost the players their guaranteed contracts, because that will be the immediate reply from the league.
Uh, no. With the lack of a CBA, whether a contract is guaranteed depends on what is agreed between a team and the player. And even if players opt for a non-guaranteed contract, they could still get a nest egg for themselves by asking for bonus money up front.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 03:59 PM
  #87
Lacaar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,399
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Bob McKenzie, Pierre Lebrun... Damen Cox, Darren Dreger..

All Pro-owner.

All accept the owners' premise on all of these arguments.
Three of those 4 are some of the most respected hockey journalist's out there.

Fact is the truly knowledgeable ones that aren't full time PA Schill's like Brooks know the players are off their rocker.

Lacaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 04:00 PM
  #88
Nab77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post





What you are talking about is called sunk cost, and every successful businessman knows all about sunk cost. You do not invest more money into a losing enterprise just because of the money you have already spent on it. Sunk cost is one of the most important basic's you learn when you study business.
I see no logic in shutting down a team worth 100M+ , if it's possible to run it on even a slight profit. At least they would be trying to sell or relocate before folding completely. Remember in this scenario you would not have an artificial limit to spend to certain degree = cap floor.

Nab77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 04:00 PM
  #89
Turbofan
The Full 60 Minutes
 
Turbofan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,257
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
But they'll make money.
Well, that depends on loyalty I guess. If the team being iced is a perennial doormat, gate revenues may suffer.

Turbofan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 04:00 PM
  #90
Number8
Registered User
 
Number8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Revenue sharing is fine, while a bit un-capitolist. The issue is that the profitable owners are saying "Why should I give my profits to an owner who is clearly less competent than I? Do I get a say in their teams operations?" and while obviously it is slightly more complicated than that (geography alone) it still stands. That owner would argue "Well why did you buy a team in a city that wouldn't make money then?". Point being if the owners are willing to revenue share great, but it comes at a cost as well.

Let's say for instance (just simple made up numbers) the top 25% of teams are bringin in $200m in profit. Now lets say that 25% of the league is losing money at an equal rate of -$200m (and the rest of the league is breaking even). Should the top profiting teams hand that $200m over to the bottom 25%? If they did, what motivation do they really have to be profitable in the first place? Wouldn't it be easier for them to spend that money to benefit themselves so that it's not available to be 'taken' at the end of the season? It's not as simple as it sounds like.

Also, The league is making quite a bit of money (about $3b I believe) but that is not profit.
Agreed. However, by definition the league is not a capitalistic market.

I don't think that the solution should fall singularly on the owners back but given the uniqueness of the league the solution requires some true give and take on all sides. I guess we'll see -- but this is rapidly shaping up to be a true pyrrhic victory for whoever ultimately "wins" this battle.

Number8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 04:01 PM
  #91
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,045
vCash: 500
FWIW, Fehr has himself said that if the lockout goes on long enough, the players will start demanding "market based solutions."

Doesn't take a genius to put two and two together. He was implicitly threatening decertification. Only with a successful anti-trust lawsuit would he be able to get the league to drop the salary cap.

But for all those smallish market fans out there, a system that Fehr would devise to replace the salary cap would likely mean more income parity in the league. But the perpetually struggling teams would likely relocate as the restrictions on movement are lowered and more lucrative markets open up.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 04:03 PM
  #92
Stickmata
Registered User
 
Stickmata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number8 View Post
I agree. However, my issue is that the "league" as a whole is doing quite well.
The league as a whole is currently earning a return on investment lower than it could earn by just throwing that money into investment grade corporate bonds, much less what it should earn on a risky equity investment. What about that is 'doing quite well'?

Stickmata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 04:08 PM
  #93
The Last Dynasty
Big #1 C
 
The Last Dynasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: St. OILbert
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,705
vCash: 500
I dare Donald to go after the cap

the league will say "fine, wanna make this nuclear? no guaranteed contracts and by the way...we can't find owners for these teams so we have no choice but to contract 4 teams...that's 92 jobs lost for the PA"

The Last Dynasty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 04:08 PM
  #94
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacaar View Post
Three of those 4 are some of the most respected hockey journalist's out there.

Fact is the truly knowledgeable ones that aren't full time PA Schill's like Brooks know the players are off their rocker.
Two of them are employed by owners of NHL teams.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 04:09 PM
  #95
Number8
Registered User
 
Number8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickmata View Post
The league as a whole is currently earning a return on investment lower than it could earn by just throwing that money into investment grade corporate bonds, much less what it should earn on a risky equity investment. What about that is 'doing quite well'?
If the situation is as dire as you suggest, why are there not 10-15 teams listed as "For Sale" on Craig's list?

Number8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 04:13 PM
  #96
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nab77 View Post
I see no logic in shutting down a team worth 100M+ , if it's possible to run it on even a slight profit. At least they would be trying to sell or relocate before folding completely. Remember in this scenario you would not have an artificial limit to spend to certain degree = cap floor.
I think you missunderstood me. I was simply saying if the choice is run the team at a greater loss, or shut down, I would shut down. If you can sell the team, fantastic, but it's really not relevant to what I'm saying in that it assumes the new owner will be automatically profitable and after a few will not simply make the same decision. If the cap is removed I believe a lot of markets imply become non-viable, and the investment required to 'grow the market' will be untenable. With the cap the league can take risks in new markets and attempt to earn new fans (the only way the NHL will make more money in the long run).

The San Jose Sharks are often sited a shining example of small market team success. They are an incredibly well run organization who are known for treating players fairly and making smart investments in their team and their community. The Sharks struggled financially for years without a cap and have only recently become a strong franchise. Even they are reportedly losing money yearly (about $15m). Were the cap removed, I believe the Sharks would quickly reverse course.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Number8 View Post
Agreed. However, by definition the league is not a capitalistic market.

I don't think that the solution should fall singularly on the owners back but given the uniqueness of the league the solution requires some true give and take on all sides. I guess we'll see -- but this is rapidly shaping up to be a true pyrrhic victory for whoever ultimately "wins" this battle.
Yah, I agree. I will say I am not a fan of collective bargaining for pay in any industry. I am ok with unions as long as they stick to safety, benefits, or rules/regulations in sports. I believe collective bargaining for pay is doing this entire country a lot of harm, not just the NHL. This coming from someone who used to be a member of several unions.

I think what this is coming down to is the owners saying "We love hockey but we do not love it enough to continue losing large sums of money" This is not a popular enough league where we are talking about how much of the profits do we share, it's how much of the loss do we share.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 04:14 PM
  #97
Soundwave
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,185
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number8 View Post
If the situation is as dire as you suggest, why are there not 10-15 teams listed as "For Sale" on Craig's list?
Who would buy those teams? You could sell winter tires more easily in Phoenix than the Coyotes.

Soundwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 04:16 PM
  #98
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 16,474
vCash: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
It's not the fact that they are conceding. I think Fehr and everyone else knows that they are going to concede.

It's the amount of conceding they are not willing to give in to now. Only to be asked to give more in 5 or 10 years because thsi CBA is not going to correct what ails the NHL.

I think any smart poster here can agree that the current system offered by the NHL will not fix the revenue disparity and if the players give in each time, last time was a 24% roll back and a Cap. this time it's contracting issues, what's it going to be next time.

If you give a dog a snack for every good deed he does, he will continue to do that.

If you capitulate in every contract negotiation with the Owners, you are training them to think that you will continue to capitulate on every CBA.

At some point the cycle has to break to get an EQUAL partnership.

It's always darkest before dawn.
If they manage to grow the game enough over the course of the next CBA then they can hope to get a bigger national US TV deal which could be used to increase revenue sharing.
On it's own the owners' proposed CBA doesn't fix everything because it doesn't need to, it's aim to foster sustainable growth which comes over time, not overnight

Do Make Say Think is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 04:16 PM
  #99
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number8 View Post
If the situation is as dire as you suggest, why are there not 10-15 teams listed as "For Sale" on Craig's list?
Because many owners are ok running at an "acceptable loss". They use the loss from their hockey team to benefit their tax situation. Likely some of them are real fans as well and see it as a worth-wild expenditure for their entertainment. Both of those things are going to have pretty fine lines though before they become not worth it.

Also, some owners may see profitability in the future if the rules stay the same or change in their favor.

Or they simply cannot sell the team as someone else pointed out.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 04:20 PM
  #100
Lacaar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,399
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Two of them are employed by owners of NHL teams.
Why don't you grow some balls and come out and say it Bob. Don't try some back ass implication.

Do you beleive Bob Mackenzie and Darren Dregher are owner schills and will support them regardless because they've been instructed by Bell/Rogers to?

Do you believe They've cast aside their Journalistic integrity?

Lacaar 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 11:23 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.