HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > San Jose Sharks
Notices

The Lockout Thread UPD 1/6 - framework of new CBA agreed to

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-24-2012, 12:35 AM
  #476
WTFetus
Moderator
 
WTFetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 11,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkie551 View Post
Not post that photo online would have been a start
What exactly is wrong with that picture? In my opinion, it's no different than a guy posting a picture of his new car, or posting a picture of his earnings from the tables.

It's certainly a douchey thing to do, but it really has nothing to do with the lock-out. I don't get your argument of how he should consider the fans' opinions and how he's out of touch with reality.

WTFetus is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 12:39 AM
  #477
SJSharksfan39
Registered User
 
SJSharksfan39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 7,189
vCash: 797
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
What exactly is wrong with that picture? In my opinion, it's no different than a guy posting a picture of his new car, or posting a picture of his earnings from the tables.
It's the perception it sends off though. We're in a lockout, the Players are trying to fight against salary rollbacks (Or were, I'm not sure what is happening anymore) it the perception I'm getting is they really aren't suffering with all the money they have. They don't care that there is a lockout happening, and they really don't care about the fans. Also, considering we do live in difficult times were many people are just struggling to get by on a monthly basis, this picture just sends off a ton of negative vibes, and since people are already pissed about this lockout. This only strengthens that anger in my opinion.

SJSharksfan39 is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 12:44 AM
  #478
WTFetus
Moderator
 
WTFetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 11,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkie551 View Post
It's the perception it sends off though. We're in a lockout, the Players are trying to fight against salary rollbacks (Or were, I'm not sure what is happening anymore) it the perception I'm getting is they really aren't suffering with all the money they have. They don't care that there is a lockout happening, and they really don't care about the fans. Also, considering we do live in difficult times were many people are just struggling to get by on a monthly basis, this picture just sends off a ton of negative vibes, and since people are already pissed about this lockout. This only strengthens that anger in my opinion.
Kane never said he was suffering, and Kane never said he doesn't care about the fans. Like I said earlier, what would you like him to do during the lock-out, just mope? He's earned that money, he has the right to spend it however the way he likes it. Posting a picture certainly makes him look like one of those party types, but it isn't really relevant to any of your perceptions.

I can understand you being mad about players like Upshall who said they were treated like cattle, or Modano who said he could barely feed his dog during the last lock-out, but getting mad at a picture is really just overreacting. Kane didn't say anything bad, or really do anything wrong.

WTFetus is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 01:07 AM
  #479
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,305
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
Kane never said he was suffering, and Kane never said he doesn't care about the fans. Like I said earlier, what would you like him to do during the lock-out, just mope? He's earned that money, he has the right to spend it however the way he likes it. Posting a picture certainly makes him look like one of those party types, but it isn't really relevant to any of your perceptions.

I can understand you being mad about players like Upshall who said they were treated like cattle, or Modano who said he could barely feed his dog during the last lock-out, but getting mad at a picture is really just overreacting. Kane didn't say anything bad, or really do anything wrong.
Part of what you are arguing about is sensationalism which is what makes the news these days.

Personally, it would send out a far better vibe to see someone like Lecavalier visiting the kids hospital wing that he endowed. A lot better PR for PA types.

SJeasy is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 01:15 AM
  #480
WTFetus
Moderator
 
WTFetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 11,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
Personally, it would send out a far better vibe to see someone like Lecavalier visiting the kids hospital wing that he endowed. A lot better PR for PA types.
I agree. That would make players look a lot better, but what Kane is doing doesn't really make him look bad. It just makes him look like a typical 21-year old rich kid.

WTFetus is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 03:21 AM
  #481
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickmata View Post
How is it poor management? They signed contracts that are subject to the new CBA. I think you guys are missing that second part. Surely the players and their agents didn't miss that. The players signed their contracts knowing full well the actual cash they were going to get was likely to be much lower than the total $ amount indicated. And the owners knew that they were going to be negotiating a more favorable CBA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickmata View Post
It's not about faith and it's not about fair and its not about Bettman. It's about a party to a negotiation understanding how much leverage they have and what the best deal possible they can get is. If you want to maximize value to yourself in any negotiation, you have to have as accurate as possible of a view of those two things, both of which are significantly impacted in this case by a) the economic reality of the NHL and b) the relative bargaining power of each party.

The players have either a) misread both of these things horribly or b) intended from the very start to blow this whole thing up and let it play out in the courts. Why I fault the players is because I don't see how either of those options provides anything but a very remote possibility that things work out better for them than just accepting Management's offer. I don't fault the players for wanting to maximize their share of the pie; I fault them for not realizing what the share really is and dragging out the inevitable. All for an incredibly slim chance at a windfall of damages under anti-trust litigation. Which, if it happened, would only enrich them at the expense of future players.
How many straight lockouts until you start to wonder about Bettman? You want the players to be unhappy with the league? How does that help?
Here is what Bettman is proposing: no signing bonuses, cut the salary cap, increase RFA time, and 5 year contract limits. This will all add up to a 20% percent pay cut for the players. Talk about hardline.
Hockey isn't basketball... Its a broken league and management is to blame for most of it. Coyotes ring a bell? How about the Thrashers? Bettman made huge leaps with the league in markets that were a long shot and now he is forcing the players to pay for his mistakes. The NHL paid 140 million to buy the Coyotes to avoid a potential investor group from moving the team to Ontario... what a move. And the owners themselves loved the expansions because the teams had to pay a huge fee to join. The short term gains allowed them to overlook that the markets just were viable to begin with. Could the owners possibly pick up some of the tab from a failed system they contributed too and profited off of... of course not its all about making the players pay the bill.
How many of Bettman's messes will the players be asked to clean up?

WantonAbandon is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 03:28 AM
  #482
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,171
vCash: 500
Some of you seem to be flipping out that the players make 50% of the revenue... I examine peoples books for a profession this doesn't seem unusual. The majority of revenue made by a business typically goes into the product. As a example: The mark-up on gasoline is typically about 5%. In the NHL's case the players are the product.

WantonAbandon is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 12:04 PM
  #483
CrazedZooChimp
Not enough guts
 
CrazedZooChimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,741
vCash: 1875
Send a message via AIM to CrazedZooChimp
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
I agree. That would make players look a lot better, but what Kane is doing doesn't really make him look bad. It just makes him look like a typical 21-year old rich kid.
I typically do not have an positive opinion of typical 21-year old rich kids

CrazedZooChimp is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 12:10 PM
  #484
CrazedZooChimp
Not enough guts
 
CrazedZooChimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,741
vCash: 1875
Send a message via AIM to CrazedZooChimp
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
Some of you seem to be flipping out that the players make 50% of the revenue... I examine peoples books for a profession this doesn't seem unusual. The majority of revenue made by a business typically goes into the product. As a example: The mark-up on gasoline is typically about 5%. In the NHL's case the players are the product.
So the majority of the revenue should go into what makes the players? Like coaches, equipment, insurance and training costs should be where most revenue goes?

I would put it that the games are the product (I would not pay to watch a practice), and there is a LOT more that goes into the cost of putting on these games than just the salary paid to players. I would be shocked if there were very many NHL teams making a profit of 5% of revenue. Maybe the new CBA should have a mandate for investor profits rather than player salaries, that model works great for regulated investor owned utilities.

CrazedZooChimp is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 12:21 PM
  #485
Led Zappa
Oy vey...
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,772
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazedZooChimp View Post
So the majority of the revenue should go into what makes the players? Like coaches, equipment, insurance and training costs should be where most revenue goes?

I would put it that the games are the product (I would not pay to watch a practice), and there is a LOT more that goes into the cost of putting on these games than just the salary paid to players. I would be shocked if there were very many NHL teams making a profit of 5% of revenue. Maybe the new CBA should have a mandate for investor profits rather than player salaries, that model works great for regulated investor owned utilities.
If that's all it took to make an NHL player you might have a point. If the NHL could take AHL/ECHL level talent and produce the same product we'd have a season already.

__________________

"This is not a nick or a scratch, this is an open wound" - Doug Wilson.
Led Zappa is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 01:08 PM
  #486
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
The posts above referenced out of whack salaries and said they wished they got 50% of the revenue or something like that. I'm saying it's a stupid comparison. But if there is a comparison to be made it would be CEO Pay vs Worker Pay / NHL Players vs NHL Worker pay.

The CEO's are the high end talent of their companies and the players are the high end talent of hockey and only reason there is a league at all. The talent pool is ridiculously low and if you think they're over paid then go spend your money on AHL or ECHL season tickets.

Again, I have a lot of problems with the framework of pro sports in general and blame the players and owners. But let's not pretend that most owners didn't used to buy teams for their ego and to win championships, not to make money.

While that has changed to some degree that's only because there became money to be made and others jumped in. Now we're somewhere in the middle.

EDIT: I believe there have even been owners who bought teams for love of the game.
Ok, that makes some sense, though I don't agree the comparison is terribly valid. CEO's work without collusion. They get what they themselves are able to earn and negotiate. I'm not a fan of collective bargaining in general and have no problem with eliminating it entirely, though I realize that would dramatically change the way sports league's operate. That's not likely to happen so not really worth discussing.

Again, my point is simply that the league as a whole is unhealthy and giving the players more money at this stage is simply going to make things worse. Who that's fair or not fair to is irrelevant, the NHL needs to fix it's economic problems and nothing the players have presented seems to address that in the slightest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
I'm not sure what you do, but odds are you would be more easily replaced than the NHL players. This gives the players economic power. So during 2004 the owners enacted a plan that was designed to save the NHL and the players made large concessions in that bargain. Since that time the NHL has bragged about record revenue and has expanded rapidly. Eight years later all of sudden the Owners claim that the deal they forced the players into doesn't work and now the players will have to take more cuts, but not us for goodness sakes we take no responsibility in this. Revenue sharing? How dare you!
Also your police officer analogy was foolish. In the typical municipality police and fire make up about 1/3 of the work force and yet they make 2/3s of all compensation.
Revenue sharing as discussed before has nothing to do with the players, it has to do with one owner who is making money bailing out another owner who is not. It's the opposite of healthy, it's punishing the successful well run franchises to help the poorly run ones. That will only lead to a less healthy league. Why be successful if they are just going to take it from you and give it to the teams with incompetent management? The way you fix the problem is creating an environment where the majority of the league can be successful and at that point the ones who are still failing have their management replaced. Yes some owners are idiots and signed players to ridiculous, totally unsustainable (from a league perspective) long term contracts. Those owners SHOULD be punished, but that doesn't mean all of the owners are to blame and thus should just allow that kind of idiocy to continue.

The last CBA was 'supposedly' a win for the owners, but in the end loophole after loophole was found until we ended up in a worse situation than we started. Those loopholes have to be closed, and some of that damage has to be reversed or the league WILL inevitably fail. If the players don't understand that then the owners have to make them understand, for their own good.

hockeyball is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 01:36 PM
  #487
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazedZooChimp View Post
So the majority of the revenue should go into what makes the players? Like coaches, equipment, insurance and training costs should be where most revenue goes?

I would put it that the games are the product (I would not pay to watch a practice), and there is a LOT more that goes into the cost of putting on these games than just the salary paid to players. I would be shocked if there were very many NHL teams making a profit of 5% of revenue. Maybe the new CBA should have a mandate for investor profits rather than player salaries, that model works great for regulated investor owned utilities.
The list is higher if you start including the non hockey revenue teams like the Sharks make. Yes the players are the product... just like gasoline is the product at a gas station not the pump... Guess were most of the revenue goes in all businesses?


Last edited by WantonAbandon: 12-24-2012 at 01:41 PM.
WantonAbandon is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 01:40 PM
  #488
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post


Revenue sharing as discussed before has nothing to do with the players, it has to do with one owner who is making money bailing out another owner who is not. It's the opposite of healthy, it's punishing the successful well run franchises to help the poorly run ones. That will only lead to a less healthy league. Why be successful if they are just going to take it from you and give it to the teams with incompetent management? The way you fix the problem is creating an environment where the majority of the league can be successful and at that point the ones who are still failing have their management replaced. Yes some owners are idiots and signed players to ridiculous, totally unsustainable (from a league perspective) long term contracts. Those owners SHOULD be punished, but that doesn't mean all of the owners are to blame and thus should just allow that kind of idiocy to continue.

The last CBA was 'supposedly' a win for the owners, but in the end loophole after loophole was found until we ended up in a worse situation than we started. Those loopholes have to be closed, and some of that damage has to be reversed or the league WILL inevitably fail. If the players don't understand that then the owners have to make them understand, for their own good.
The owners profited off the all the ill advised expansions through the fees. They profited and were more directly involved in those decisions then the players actually were and yet they don't want to share in the pain. This next CBA isn't going to magically fix the NHLs problems just like the one before it didn't, so the players will lose what another 20% in eight years? Why should they agree to sign up for a sinking ship. Why don't the owners agree to a sustainable situation by contributing to the so called "partnership" they lied to the players about. What the players really want is assurances that the bleeding will stop. This is something Bettman refuses to do and it will eventually kill the league.

WantonAbandon is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 01:52 PM
  #489
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,171
vCash: 500
The basic message from Bettman to the players is this: Ice cream for us and poison pill for you and there will be another eight years from now.

WantonAbandon is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 02:18 PM
  #490
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
The owners profited off the all the ill advised expansions through the fees. They profited and were more directly involved in those decisions then the players actually were and yet they don't want to share in the pain. This next CBA isn't going to magically fix the NHLs problems just like the one before it didn't, so the players will lose what another 20% in eight years? Why should they agree to sign up for a sinking ship. Why don't the owners agree to a sustainable situation by contributing to the so called "partnership" they lied to the players about. What the players really want is assurances that the bleeding will stop. This is something Bettman refuses to do and it will eventually kill the league.
20%? Ive heard at most 10%, and generally its more like 5-7%. Where is this 20% thing coming from? Are you just making an assumption?

How do you suggest they contribute to this 'partnership'? Because revenue sharing is not it, it only indirectly benefits the players and does a ton of harm to the business model of the NHL.

The bleeding will stop when the players realize they are not in a 2nd or 3rd rate league, they are in a 4th or 5th rate league in a sport most Americans could not care less about and right now is not the time to extort the management.

What will happen if things are managed the right way is the owners will continue to cover the losses, the players will give a little and help out. The league will correct it's course, revenue will continue to increase and if they get their business running correctly they will start to see league wide profitability. When teams are profitable the players will automatically make more, when owners are profitable they are going to be a lot more willing to give at the negotiating table as well.

Right now the players are (as unions often do) focusing on short term solutions and not long term viability. Unions often focus on the short term so much that they drive the company right out of business. Fair pay doesn't mean much when you are out of a job.

hockeyball is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 03:00 PM
  #491
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
20%? Ive heard at most 10%, and generally its more like 5-7%. Where is this 20% thing coming from? Are you just making an assumption?

How do you suggest they contribute to this 'partnership'? Because revenue sharing is not it, it only indirectly benefits the players and does a ton of harm to the business model of the NHL.

The bleeding will stop when the players realize they are not in a 2nd or 3rd rate league, they are in a 4th or 5th rate league in a sport most Americans could not care less about and right now is not the time to extort the management.

What will happen if things are managed the right way is the owners will continue to cover the losses, the players will give a little and help out. The league will correct it's course, revenue will continue to increase and if they get their business running correctly they will start to see league wide profitability. When teams are profitable the players will automatically make more, when owners are profitable they are going to be a lot more willing to give at the negotiating table as well.

Right now the players are (as unions often do) focusing on short term solutions and not long term viability. Unions often focus on the short term so much that they drive the company right out of business. Fair pay doesn't mean much when you are out of a job.
Economists are typically hired to estimate the impact of proposals. I haven't been able to find a specific name but if you want I can get back to you on that. Now the number isn't set in stone as a deal hasn't been hammered out yet, but all the things I mentioned apparently add up to 15-20%. 20% just happens to nearly be the exact percentage the players lost in 2004. What a bizarre coincidence...
Here lets do some basic math: In 2004 the players made about 1.494 billion and the revenues were about 1.996 billion. The league had to have around 770 million in other costs in order to equate the overall 273 loss they reported.
The Lockout happened and players share was rolled back by 20%. Todays revenues are reported to be 3.2 billion and player costs have only risen by about 25-30%. This would leave the league a little more than 1.3 billion to cover "other costs". In short the only real way the league could be losing money as a whole is if other costs have basically doubled. BUT ITS ALL THE NHLPA!!!! The owners shouldn't have to contribute or take any responsibility to the partnership they lied to the players about. They shouldn't take any responsibility for horrible decisions like keeping the Yotes in AR when they didn't have to. They should be able to pocket all that fee money and laugh all the way to the bank.
The last time the players made significant successions it didn't seem to help the league. In fact all it did was lead to the league asking for significant cuts as soon as it was able to to do so. Why should the players believe that this time around will be any different? So let me ask again what concessions have the owners made to the players in order to help the overall sustainability of the league?

WantonAbandon is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 03:09 PM
  #492
Eighth Fret
Registered User
 
Eighth Fret's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
How many straight lockouts until you start to wonder about Bettman? You want the players to be unhappy with the league? How does that help?
Here is what Bettman is proposing: no signing bonuses, cut the salary cap, increase RFA time, and 5 year contract limits. This will all add up to a 20% percent pay cut for the players. Talk about hardline.
Hockey isn't basketball... Its a broken league and management is to blame for most of it. Coyotes ring a bell? How about the Thrashers? Bettman made huge leaps with the league in markets that were a long shot and now he is forcing the players to pay for his mistakes. The NHL paid 140 million to buy the Coyotes to avoid a potential investor group from moving the team to Ontario... what a move. And the owners themselves loved the expansions because the teams had to pay a huge fee to join. The short term gains allowed them to overlook that the markets just were viable to begin with. Could the owners possibly pick up some of the tab from a failed system they contributed too and profited off of... of course not its all about making the players pay the bill.
How many of Bettman's messes will the players be asked to clean up?
Bettman's not the one who expanded into Southern markets. The majority of sun-belt teams were already around when he came in.

Eighth Fret is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 03:18 PM
  #493
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eighth Fret View Post
Bettman's not the one who expanded into Southern markets. The majority of sun-belt teams were already around when he came in.
Ok lets go over one team at the moment maybe I will expand this when I have more time: Betmman became the comish in 93. The Coyotes moved to AR in 1996. They moved to Glendale in 2003. In 2005 the team went bankrupt. During that year there was an offer from an investor group lead by Jim Balsillie to purchase the team and move them to Ontario. Instead the NHL purchased the team for 140 million and have been absorbing the losses ever since. They did recently sell the team... At least I think the deal finally went through.

WantonAbandon is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 03:39 PM
  #494
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
Economists are typically hired to estimate the impact of proposals. I haven't been able to find a specific name but if you want I can get back to you on that. Now the number isn't set in stone as a deal hasn't been hammered out yet, but all the things I mentioned apparently add up to 15-20%. 20% just happens to nearly be the exact percentage the players lost in 2004. What a bizarre coincidence...
Here lets do some basic math: In 2004 the players made about 1.494 billion and the revenues were about 1.996 billion. The league had to have around 770 million in other costs in order to equate the overall 273 loss they reported.
The Lockout happened and players share was rolled back by 20%. Todays revenues are reported to be 3.2 billion and player costs have only risen by about 25-30%. This would leave the league a little more than 1.3 billion to cover "other costs". In short the only real way the league could be losing money as a whole is if other costs have basically doubled. BUT ITS ALL THE NHLPA!!!! The owners shouldn't have to contribute or take any responsibility to the partnership they lied to the players about. They shouldn't take any responsibility for horrible decisions like keeping the Yotes in AR when they didn't have to. They should be able to pocket all that fee money and laugh all the way to the bank.
The last time the players made significant successions it didn't seem to help the league. In fact all it did was lead to the league asking for significant cuts as soon as it was able to to do so. Why should the players believe that this time around will be any different? So let me ask again what concessions have the owners made to the players in order to help the overall sustainability of the league?
Using your numbers $770m is only $25m per team. I'm not sure how teams could have operated that lean, but it's pretty tough to imagine. That would include arena leases, staff, maintenance, travel expenses, utilities, marketing, equipment, Coaches (some make upto $1m+ alone), etc. $1.3b is $43m per team.

So $43m operating budget for all expenses. Keep in mind, that's an average. Some teams like the Islanders pulled in only $66m, and had a payroll of around $50m which left them with $16m to spend on everything. Let me write that another way, the New York Islanders gave 76% of their revenue to the players. In fact, the San Jose Sharks who are considered a very well run franchise brought in about 101m, spend $62m on players (62% basically) leaving them $39m to spend on everything else.

As a comparison, the Oakland Raiders had $226m in revenue in the same time period, making them the worst performer in the entire NFL, and they brought in more than the Maple Leafs.

The NHL cannot operate like the NFL, NBA, MLB or the MLS. As a business they are in deep financial trouble. If they don't correct that course in very short order their literally may not be an NHL in the near future.

hockeyball is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 04:03 PM
  #495
Eighth Fret
Registered User
 
Eighth Fret's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
Ok lets go over one team at the moment maybe I will expand this when I have more time: Betmman became the comish in 93. The Coyotes moved to AR in 1996. They moved to Glendale in 2003. In 2005 the team went bankrupt. During that year there was an offer from an investor group lead by Jim Balsillie to purchase the team and move them to Ontario. Instead the NHL purchased the team for 140 million and have been absorbing the losses ever since. They did recently sell the team... At least I think the deal finally went through.
That's one team. Two if you want to include Atlanta. The League's problems go far beyond two unprofitable franchises. I just wanted to make sure you weren't blaming Bettman for all Southern/sun-belt expansion.

Eighth Fret is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 04:44 PM
  #496
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Using your numbers $770m is only $25m per team. I'm not sure how teams could have operated that lean, but it's pretty tough to imagine. That would include arena leases, staff, maintenance, travel expenses, utilities, marketing, equipment, Coaches (some make upto $1m+ alone), etc. $1.3b is $43m per team.

So $43m operating budget for all expenses. Keep in mind, that's an average. Some teams like the Islanders pulled in only $66m, and had a payroll of around $50m which left them with $16m to spend on everything. Let me write that another way, the New York Islanders gave 76% of their revenue to the players. In fact, the San Jose Sharks who are considered a very well run franchise brought in about 101m, spend $62m on players (62% basically) leaving them $39m to spend on everything else.

As a comparison, the Oakland Raiders had $226m in revenue in the same time period, making them the worst performer in the entire NFL, and they brought in more than the Maple Leafs.

The NHL cannot operate like the NFL, NBA, MLB or the MLS. As a business they are in deep financial trouble. If they don't correct that course in very short order their literally may not be an NHL in the near future.
Its not my math its the NHLs... Its from the report produced by a former SEC Charmian. Unless you are accusing the NHL of fraud you can't just deny the numbers because it doesn't fit your point of view. The PDF of the 2004 report can be found on the net.
Let me ask you something. When all revenue is accounted for do you really believe that SJSE&E is losing money? Sure they are losing money on the Sharks but once you consider a basic principal of cost accounting you would know that they would be far worse off without the team. You do realize that teams can still be making money despite the league losing money as a whole which is hard to believe is still the case anyway. I do understand that there are teams that are losing money overall, but a lot of that was due to bad decisions made by the league.
With that said I think only hockey related revenue should be considered in these talks. I also think the players will have to make concessions which they have already agreed to do so, however the idea that the owners shouldn't have to share in the pain is absurd. The NHL will not be able to solve its problems just by chipping away from their players. The NHLPA isn't going to want to be in a position to continually have give more and more every eight years. The NHL will have to get serious about coming up with a plan to make the league sustainable.

WantonAbandon is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 04:58 PM
  #497
WantonAbandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eighth Fret View Post
That's one team. Two if you want to include Atlanta. The League's problems go far beyond two unprofitable franchises. I just wanted to make sure you weren't blaming Bettman for all Southern/sun-belt expansion.
Nashville was founded in 98. Wild 97. Colrado Avs formed/moved 94. Canes formed/moved in 97. Blue Jackets founded in 00. Dallas stars formed/moved in 93. Panthers, Ducks in 93 (year Bettman became Comish so not sure if he is responsible). And of course the debacles you mentioned.

The short version is: Bettman started with 24 and there are now 30 teams. Four have been relocated.

WantonAbandon is offline  
Old
12-24-2012, 05:42 PM
  #498
Eighth Fret
Registered User
 
Eighth Fret's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
Nashville was founded in 98. Wild 97. Colrado Avs formed/moved 94. Canes formed/moved in 97. Blue Jackets founded in 00. Dallas stars formed/moved in 93. Panthers, Ducks in 93 (year Bettman became Comish so not sure if he is responsible). And of course the debacles you mentioned.

The short version is: Bettman started with 24 and there are now 30 teams. Four have been relocated.
Minnesota isn't in the sun-belt, and neither is Columbus -- and both are close to big college hockey programs. Without using the luxury of hindsight, it's not outrageous to have considered expansion to those cities.

The gears were put in motion for the North Stars to move to Dallas before Bettman ever arrived -- same with Panthers and Ducks.

Eighth Fret is offline  
Old
12-25-2012, 12:38 AM
  #499
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon View Post
Its not my math its the NHLs... Its from the report produced by a former SEC Charmian. Unless you are accusing the NHL of fraud you can't just deny the numbers because it doesn't fit your point of view. The PDF of the 2004 report can be found on the net.
Let me ask you something. When all revenue is accounted for do you really believe that SJSE&E is losing money? Sure they are losing money on the Sharks but once you consider a basic principal of cost accounting you would know that they would be far worse off without the team. You do realize that teams can still be making money despite the league losing money as a whole which is hard to believe is still the case anyway. I do understand that there are teams that are losing money overall, but a lot of that was due to bad decisions made by the league.
With that said I think only hockey related revenue should be considered in these talks. I also think the players will have to make concessions which they have already agreed to do so, however the idea that the owners shouldn't have to share in the pain is absurd. The NHL will not be able to solve its problems just by chipping away from their players. The NHLPA isn't going to want to be in a position to continually have give more and more every eight years. The NHL will have to get serious about coming up with a plan to make the league sustainable.
I didn't say your numbers were wrong, I just said I can't speak to their accuracy. I also said running a sports team on that kind of budget must have been pretty rough. I don't see today's budget as that outrageous, and with most teams more than half the revenue is going to the players.

Do I think the SVSE is profitable? No, likely the just about break even, but that is good enough for them for tax reasons to keep operating as is. Do I think they can spare more money for the players? Absolutely not, I doubt if the cap got much higher they would spend up to it, they didn't last season. If the percentage of salary the players increased the Sharks would simply buy less expensive players, benefiting no one.

You are speaking very idealistically without really thinking through (it seems) the consequences of what you are saying. If the current roster cost Phoenix, or Long Island, or Columbus 10% more they would simply reduce the quality of their team, not meet it, they can't afford it. They are already trying to get the league minimum reduced because so many teams simply cannot afford it. Paying players more is not going to make anything better for anyone, even the players.

hockeyball is offline  
Old
12-25-2012, 01:24 AM
  #500
Led Zappa
Oy vey...
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,772
vCash: 500
Pay the ****ing money or get out. You had 20 years to fix this ****ing league and now you want to blame the players..., again. I don't care if they make a ****ing dime. I hope the players hold out for ****ing ever now. Sink the god damn league and build another. It may hurt the players worse, but I'm a fan of hockey, not the corporate entity known as the NHL, so I DGAF.

If the owners think they are losing now, wait until their teams *cough* are worth zero.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bettman
These aren't negotiations. This is our offer.
Well, **** You!

And that is how I feel tonight.


Last edited by Led Zappa: 12-25-2012 at 01:37 AM.
Led Zappa 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 03:28 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.