And there's a lot more of us, so you lose. Merry Christmas.
Edit: Then again, the only reason I pay for cable is HD sports.
I could respond with those who don't have season tickets should shut the **** up, but instead I'll say: Merry Christmas to you and you and you and you and.........
I used to have season tickets till I moved. I don't now, but it wouldn't change my opinion any. I'd be annoyed at the league for not handling that better, but it's unrelated to the negotiations with players.
I used to have season tickets till I moved. I don't now, but it wouldn't change my opinion any. I'd be annoyed at the league for not handling that better, but it's unrelated to the negotiations with players.
I was pretty buzzed and venting and messing around. Besides that, I know many STH's that are on the owners side.
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.
Oh come on... Do you think they hosted the SAP tournament for free all those years? They manage the arena... They get plenty of revenue from non hockey related activities. Plenty to more than cover the 5 million on average they lose on the Sharks and make a nice profit. They still do need the revenue from the Sharks to make a profit however.
The point is the NHL expanded way too fast. This was the leagues decision to do this and they profited heavily from the fees. Bettman could have instead focused on the 24 teams the NHL had when he was hired, but no... he had to expand. The NHL has the ability to cover some of the mistakes they made, but they are refusing to do so. They want the players to pay for all of it.
Last edited by WantonAbandon: 12-25-2012 at 03:44 PM.
Good. Take their offer. You were ready to take their offer until that ego maniac Fehr stopped you and made you lose even more money in salary lost.
**** you players for overthrowing someone respectable like Kelly and hiring someone like Fehr.
Kelly's concessions apparently did the players absolutely no favors... as the league is once again asking for more as soon as they were able to do so... Someone has to work to stop the bleeding.
Oh come on... Do you think they hosted the SAP tournament for free all those years? They manage the arena... They get plenty of revenue from non hockey related activities. Plenty to more than cover the 5 million on average they lose on the Sharks and make a nice profit. They still do need the revenue from the Sharks to make a profit however.
The point is the NHL expanded way too fast. This was the leagues decision to do this and they profited heavily from the fees. Bettman could have instead focused on the 24 teams the NHL had when he was hired, but no... he had to expand. The NHL has the ability to cover some of the mistakes they made, but they are refusing to do so. They want the players to pay for all of it.
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?
You are understating the player pay increase. It went from $1.4mil to $2.4mil average. That is a 70% increase in salary. The league went from $2.1bil to $3.3bil. That is a 57% increase. Part of that is the escalation of the cap from 54 to 57%.
The league is also claiming that non-player payroll expenses escalating faster than revenue. I can believe it on health care, electricity, travel (fuel) and insurance. Other categories, not so much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon
Oh come on... Do you think they hosted the SAP tournament for free all those years? They manage the arena... They get plenty of revenue from non hockey related activities. Plenty to more than cover the 5 million on average they lose on the Sharks and make a nice profit. They still do need the revenue from the Sharks to make a profit however.
The point is the NHL expanded way too fast. This was the leagues decision to do this and they profited heavily from the fees. Bettman could have instead focused on the 24 teams the NHL had when he was hired, but no... he had to expand. The NHL has the ability to cover some of the mistakes they made, but they are refusing to do so. They want the players to pay for all of it.
The decision to expand was made by the BOG under Ziegler, not Bettman. Bettman was hired with the directive to oversee the expansion. It wasn't his idea, but he was on board with it. Until the last four teams, the expansion locations were pretty much set in stone. I am not sure who was responsible for the last 4 locations, the BOG or GB. Additionally, he did try to save Canadian franchises, but ran into brick walls. He actually succeed with the Oilers but was rebuffed in Winnipeg and QC (no buyers). He actually lobbied to life the restriction on ownership rules to keep the Oil in place.
Last edited by SJeasy: 12-25-2012 at 06:40 PM.
Reason: added another correction
You are understating the player pay increase. It went from $1.4mil to $2.4mil average. That is a 70% increase in salary. The league went from $2.1bil to $3.3bil. That is a 57% increase. Part of that is the escalation of the cap from 54 to 57%.
The league is also claiming that non-player payroll expenses escalating faster than revenue. I can believe it on health care, electricity, travel (fuel) and insurance. Other categories, not so much.
The decision to expand was made by the BOG under Ziegler, not Bettman. Bettman was hired with the directive to oversee the expansion. It wasn't his idea, but he was on board with it. Until the last four teams, the expansion locations were pretty much set in stone. I am not sure who was responsible for the last 4 locations, the BOG or GB. Additionally, he did try to save Canadian franchises, but ran into brick walls. He actually succeed with the Oilers but was rebuffed in Winnipeg and QC (no buyers). He actually lobbied to life the restriction on ownership rules to keep the Oil in place.
We have conflicting information regarding the increase in players payroll. I got my numbers from Bloomberg. Where did you get yours?
So Bettman takes no responsibility for the numerous expansions that happened about 5 years after he was hired as comish? Were talking about 98-00; thats four out of the six by my count
I could respond with those who don't have season tickets should shut the **** up, but instead I'll say: Merry Christmas to you and you and you and you and.........
Then there are those of us that knew there was going to be a very long lockout so we gave up our season tickets, knowing full well that when the dust settled, if there was still a league operating, it would be pretty easy to get all the tickets we wanted.
The players have seven days to either cave or blow things up and throw away their golden goose for the chance that there's a pot of gold waiting for them at the end of the antitrust litigation rainbow. Honestly, while I love hockey and have been a rabid NHL fan for over 40 years, I'm kinda pulling for a meltdown at this point, leading to massive contraction of the league and many of these players heading back to the real world workforce. I'm sure those three years of high school education are gonna come in handy.
Oh come on... Do you think they hosted the SAP tournament for free all those years? They manage the arena... They get plenty of revenue from non hockey related activities. Plenty to more than cover the 5 million on average they lose on the Sharks and make a nice profit. They still do need the revenue from the Sharks to make a profit however.
The point is the NHL expanded way too fast. This was the leagues decision to do this and they profited heavily from the fees. Bettman could have instead focused on the 24 teams the NHL had when he was hired, but no... he had to expand. The NHL has the ability to cover some of the mistakes they made, but they are refusing to do so. They want the players to pay for all of it.
Again, you are mixing revenue's. I am talking PURELY about hockey revenue. The SAP open is not hockey related and thus is not relevant. They could host the SAP open with or without the San Jose Sharks franchise. As a businessperson you do not steal from Peter to pay Paul and say "That's a good long term plan". You treat each part of your business as a self sustaining enterprise, if it is unable to do so, you dump it (or change it). Do the San Jose Sharks make a profit, SVSE (hockey related) included? No, and that is all that should be considered. The NHLPA has nothing to do with non-hockey related revenue or events and should not benefit it either monetarily or in negotiations.
You seem to have an emotional thing going on with your defense of the players, and that is fine, but I don't see the business logic. I don't care one iota about the owners or the players emotionally, I'm only speaking on this topic from a business stand point. If the NHL want's to have a successful business they are going to have to 'take' quite a bit from the players to get there. I don't see anyway to run the business AND give players more than half of the revenue. The league would need to go to a whole new level of revenue before that could work, and to get there the players are going to have to 'invest' in the long term health of the league by 'giving' up some money.
Keep in mind, a lot of that 'giving' is simply the closing of some massive and totally unintentional loopholes that should have never existed in the first place.
We have conflicting information regarding the increase in players payroll. I got my numbers from Bloomberg. Where did you get yours?
So Bettman takes no responsibility for the numerous expansions that happened about 5 years after he was hired as comish? Were talking about 98-00; thats four out of the six by my count
Average player salaries. You can take total HRR as reported and use the appropriate multiplier. Use 700 (approx. number) as the divisor to get avg. salary. Or, you can multiply 2.1bil by 54% as the starting point and 3.3bil by 57% as the endpoint and figure the difference.
2.1*.54=1.134bil
3.3*.57=1.881bil
The above method yields a 65% increase in salary.
The last 4 teams added were planned before Bettman's watch. I have no idea if he was involved in venue or ownership selection for those franchises or if they were pre-planned on the details. AIUI, they were going to add 4 but Bettman was involved in the selection of which 4. At the time, the Canadian dollar was in the tank so there was no chance of a Canadian entry during that era.
As a businessperson you do not steal from Peter to pay Paul and say "That's a good long term plan". You treat each part of your business as a self sustaining enterprise, if it is unable to do so, you dump it (or change it).
If a part of your business is unprofitable and shows no long term potential for profitability (as what the players for asking for would basically guarentee for many teams) you dump it, you don't keep investing money from the profitable parts of your business into a losing endeavor. Especially when the two things are separate unrelated enterprises.
If a part of your business is unprofitable and shows no long term potential for profitability (as what the players for asking for would basically guarentee for many teams) you dump it, you don't keep investing money from the profitable parts of your business into a losing endeavor. Especially when the two things are separate unrelated enterprises.
The world doesn't actually work this way. Basic cost accounting proves you are wrong.
Here is that basic principal of accounting put into simple terms:
Lets say you have a factory that produces belts and shoes
Lets say the overhead of your factory is 100k. Overhead equates to costs that can't be directly attributed to a specific department or production. An arena lease would be overhead.
Lets say the costs that are directly attributable to producing shoes is 110k. The revenue you make on for selling shoes is 100k.
At the same time the costs that are directly attributable to producing belts are 20k. You make 40k.
In this scenario you have a profitable business, however you lose money on producing shoes. If you were to eliminate your shoe production you would be far worse off and be flirting with bankruptcy.
