HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Lockout VII: I've walked for miles, my feet are hurting

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-04-2013, 11:51 AM
  #51
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conflicted Habs fan View Post
however whenever the PA and NHL got close Bettman would either pull away or alter the conditions. Fehr caught on that a deal will not be closing, so the PA will file a disclaimer of interest. Its not a negotiating tact as many here are saying, it's for real, the PA are being pushed here by Bettman to settle this outside of the boardroom and into the courts.
Two things. One you're conveniently forgetting history. Its not Bettman who keeps adding things (escrow limits, compliance buyouts, etc) at the last minute - that's Fehr.

How is them filing a DOI for real? They had authorization... then didn't file, now are going to vote again? That's absolutely only a negotiating tactic. DOI is the PA not wanting to be a union... clearly that's not the case, as we just saw over the last week.

__________________
"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 11:52 AM
  #52
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,552
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
Not only that, it ticks off the players each and every time and they get more and more intractable themselves.

It's almost like Bettman can't help himself.
When the players met with the moderate owners they nearly had a deal done, then Fehr moved the goal posts. It's almost like Fehr can't help himself.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 11:55 AM
  #53
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,552
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
The arenas are dark - the owners have yet to get a single thing from the players.
The majority of owners lose money on their hockey operation. Until they get a deal that makes that operation profitable, the owners aren't losing anything.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 11:56 AM
  #54
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoltSTH View Post
If it goes to court can the mediators be called as witnesses? If so I would think their view of if who did, didn't do any negotiating in good faith would have a major impact on the ruling.
I don't think you understand the legal definition of negotiating in good faith. The league could show up, and stand by their original July offer, and as long as they participated in the process, they're legally negotiating in good faith.

Riptide is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 11:59 AM
  #55
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
The majority of owners lose money on their hockey operation. Until they get a deal that makes that operation profitable, the owners aren't losing anything.
Here's a couple ideas:
- Don't spend to the cap if you can't afford it
- Don't put teams where the locals don't watch the sport

DyerMaker66 is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 12:00 PM
  #56
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
More - I know that this is what Fehr did in MLB. I wonder, though, if that was a different situation. MLB players had no CBA right to playoff money. In this case, the players get their cut of playoff income, too. That lessens the leverage they have for a late season strike.

I rather think, that, as long as the players could play under the old CBA, that's what they would do. In other words, just keep dragging out and dragging out until the CBA expired totally. It's their best move, money wise.
I agree that the division of revenues lessen's the risk of the PA striking, it's still a risk. And regardless if it's Fehr or someone else across the table, it's a risk that completely avoidable, and no one will take anymore (see NBA and NFL).

Riptide is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 12:00 PM
  #57
JMT21
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 820
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedeyeRocketeer View Post
I wonder what the real impact of this lockout will be to attendance and merchandising. I've promised myself to not attend an NHL game, or pay anything directly to the NHL for the balance of this season, and the next. I wonder if I'm in the minority.
The 7 CDN teams along with NYR, Philly, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Detroit, Boston, San Jose & LA will see little to no impact at all (outside of revenue lost for games not played)..... the impact on the rest of teams...... remains to be seen.

JMT21 is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 12:06 PM
  #58
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
More - I guess I need something clarified. A question on the prior CBA. Did the term of it expire, or did the owners exercise their right to end it, and hen lockout the players? I have been under the impression that the prior CBA could have been in place another year. If that it true, then obviously, the players would play any delay game possible, because their cut in the prior CBA was higher than anything they ever get otherwise.

However, if the prior CBA expired of its own terms (means the owners chose not to use their right to end opt out), then there would have to be an agreement to play this year under the terms of the old CBA. The legal details of that agreement would determine whether a strike right existed for the players. I suspect that the owners would not have given them strike rights at the end of season/before playoffs without the players' cut of playoff income also suffering.
Not sure if this has been answered yet. The last CBA was a 6 year CBA, and the players had the option for a 7th year - which they exercised. So when the CBA expired this Sept, it was completely over and a new one was needed.

Riptide is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 12:07 PM
  #59
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,058
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
I believe hes working under the assumption that if the season were to continue while bargaining was under way, it would continue operating under the expired CBA. that's what the players suggested, and I believe that's what happened in the 90's when they played while negotiating.
It's the only way it could continue to work, without a new agreement the league wouldnt be able to just choose what rules they were operating under. They need an agreement with the players to change anything. So since the owners are going after concessions to the system it wouldnt really make sense to continue playing in a system that cost them too much. If they wanted to do that they could have just stayed with the old agreement.

It happens fairly often here in Alberta that public employees like teachers and nurses and even doctors continue to operate after their old agreement has expired. They of course are always looking for increases in salary to keep up with inflation etc and usually end up getting a retroactive bump in pay once the agreement is reached. It would be much harder to get the players to accept a retroactive pay cut.

Halibut is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 12:07 PM
  #60
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 32,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMT21 View Post
The 7 CDN teams along with NYR, Philly, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Detroit, Boston, San Jose & LA will see little to no impact at all (outside of revenue lost for games not played)..... the impact on the rest of teams...... remains to be seen.
You can add Buffalo to your list. The Sabres will be fine.

joshjull is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 12:11 PM
  #61
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,218
vCash: 500
Riptide -

I have been thinking about what you wrote:

It took me a while to realize this. In fact made up a pretty spreadsheet with average capacity and average tickets then split it 50/50 (50% of gate was redistributed 30 ways). What I found was that unless the league AVERAGE ticket price was $330+, the NHL redistributes MORE money with 6.5% (~200m) than they would if they split the gate 50/50 30 ways.

What I mean is that when you consider what Phoenix (and everyone else) contributes (from 50% of their gate) and what they get in return from RS (1/30th of the RS pot, 50% of everyone elses gate), it's actually less than what the NHL is giving them now... Unless the average ticket price works out to be $330, in which case its about the same.


This is a shocking revelation. I think most people would have some feeling for "Share the gate with the road team" as a RS system. What you are saying, and I believe you, is that what is needed is way more than that. Literally a welfare system. Wow. That is amazing.

I think that is good reason for doubting the long term viability of this league. There is simply too much revenue disparity (I assume that the local TV contracts are very disparate also) to think it can hang together.

Perhaps the only way is a different way to calculate the salary floor. Otherwise, like other posters have said often, the revenue from the healthier teams dwarfs anything the bottom feeders can bring in, and it always will.

MNNumbers is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 12:13 PM
  #62
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Not sure if this has been answered yet. The last CBA was a 6 year CBA, and the players had the option for a 7th year - which they exercised. So when the CBA expired this Sept, it was completely over and a new one was needed.
Not sure about this, Riptide. The FAQ on this site seems to suggest that the old CBA was automatically renewed from year to year unless one party opted out. Which the owners did last spring, before May 18, effective Sept 15.

MNNumbers is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 12:14 PM
  #63
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
the players said, "Let's just play while we negotiate..." that would just be their best tactic. The old rules were better for them than anything else they might get, and they knew it. Under those rules, they wouldn't strike. Never. They had it good.

So, what I am saying is that Fehr never could have had a "we will strike right before the playoffs" card to play. It would never have fallen that way. His best tactic would be like this:

If the old CBA were not cancelled, then delay, delay, delay and don't even bother with negotiations. As long as we can play under those rules, we win.
Sadly, you can't make that case with 100% certainty. As we've seen so far, Fehr doesn't seem to mind missing paycheques to gain small results. Assuming a deal is made over the next week, chances are it's very similar to what was offered last month.

And it's actually not about whether they would or wouldn't strike before the playoffs... it's about whether the risk of them actually doing it is there. All Fehr would have to do is threaten it. As we've seen, the NHL is very risk adverse (it's not something that's unique to the NHL, most businesses are this way). This is why linkage is suck a big deal for them - despite the fact that it's unlikely that revenues will ever really fall. They may plateau, and growth may (and likely will) slow down, but it's very very unlikely that it'll decrease. And yet they still insist on linkage - why? Risk management - there's no other explanation (other than it's an easy way to determine the yearly cap without major arguments with the PA).

Riptide is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 12:15 PM
  #64
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,058
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Two things. One you're conveniently forgetting history. Its not Bettman who keeps adding things (escrow limits, compliance buyouts, etc) at the last minute - that's Fehr.

How is them filing a DOI for real? They had authorization... then didn't file, now are going to vote again? That's absolutely only a negotiating tactic. DOI is the PA not wanting to be a union... clearly that's not the case, as we just saw over the last week.
It is Bettman and the NHL that tried to reduce the penalty for hiding HRR which was either grossly incompetent on someones part, an attempt to pull the one over on the union, or a deliberate attempt to sabotage talks. That is a great negotiating move, trying to make it easier to cheat the players out of their share when they already dont trust that you are revealing all revenues.

It makes sense that the union didnt file a DOI when negotiations looked to be moving forward and possibly working for a change. If they reach a point where it looks like negotiations are pointless then it makes sense that they would get rid of the union. If it accomplishes nothing for them and is only helping out management get rid of it. Really if it comes to the point where the season is cancelled they should go the full route of decertification.

Halibut is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 12:19 PM
  #65
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A. suburb
Country: United States
Posts: 8,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post

The PA is not (currently) acting stupidly.
Yes they are acting stupidly (and they have been for the last 10 months).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post

And they are being guided by a damn smart, experienced labor leader...
... whose actions have taken salaries out of their pockets.

When this is all over (someday) and the NHL is playing games, Fehr will have caused every NHLPA member to lose money - some muuuuch more than others.

Butch 19 is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 12:23 PM
  #66
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
The majority of owners lose money on their hockey operation. Until they get a deal that makes that operation profitable, the owners aren't losing anything.
I fail to see how that's my problem whereas my team has to pay for it. It's a separate company.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 12:31 PM
  #67
WingedWheel1987
Ken Holland's office
 
WingedWheel1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GPP Michigan
Posts: 8,201
vCash: 500
How is this not over? It's like the NHL and NHLPA want to play 48 games in 48 days.

WingedWheel1987 is online now  
Old
01-04-2013, 12:32 PM
  #68
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Only if they win an anti-trust case and get triple damages, which is highly unlikely.
Actually if NHL cancels the season the moment Fehr files for DOI (which has been speculated), PA won't get any damages. They would get triple damages only for any future missed games because of lock-out, not for the ones they have missed so far. And if NHL cancels the season immediately, the amount of damages PA gets is zero.

Pepper is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 12:33 PM
  #69
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
How is them filing a DOI for real? They had authorization... then didn't file, now are going to vote again? That's absolutely only a negotiating tactic. DOI is the PA not wanting to be a union... clearly that's not the case, as we just saw over the last week.
Actually DOI is Fehr not wanting to represent the union anymore, whereas full decertifying is the union disbanding itself.

PA doesn't file the DOI, it's Fehr who files it.

Pepper is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 12:43 PM
  #70
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Actually DOI is Fehr not wanting to represent the union anymore, whereas full decertifying is the union disbanding itself.

PA doesn't file the DOI, it's Fehr who files it.
Yeah should have worded that differently. Its the union saying they don't want to represent the players. But the end result is still the same. It's a complete sham, as we all saw this week.

Riptide is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 12:53 PM
  #71
saillias
Registered User
 
saillias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,939
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMT21 View Post
The 7 CDN teams along with NYR, Philly, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Detroit, Boston, San Jose & LA will see little to no impact at all (outside of revenue lost for games not played)..... the impact on the rest of teams...... remains to be seen.
I would add Minnesota to that list.

saillias is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:02 PM
  #72
FishMonger
Registered User
 
FishMonger's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
I fail to see how that's my problem whereas my team has to pay for it. It's a separate company.
Unelss your company wants to play the same 5 teams over and over, it is a problem. Especially when you consider an 82-game season would be out of the question in that case. So, less money for your company.

The relationship between the teams needs to be somwhere between symbiotic and parasitic.


Last edited by FishMonger: 01-04-2013 at 01:14 PM.
FishMonger is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:09 PM
  #73
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,723
vCash: 500
Yeah saw that post on the CBA (re when it expired) after I'd posted, I was wrong. Thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
This is a shocking revelation. I think most people would have some feeling for "Share the gate with the road team" as a RS system. What you are saying, and I believe you, is that what is needed is way more than that. Literally a welfare system. Wow. That is amazing.
I don't know if you need more than that. But before I ran the numbers, it was a shock to me as well. I was 100% for sharing a large portion of the gate, and TV revenues. And while I couldn't find any numbers on TV revenues (other than 1 line that said the average 5 years ago was ~12.5m per team, and that Toronto was something like 45m yearly), what I saw on the ticket side was enough to make me re-think things. But it's likely going to be relatively the same as sharing the gate. It'll re-distribute some money to some teams... but not nearly as much as we'd like to think, and that something else in addition to this is needed.

I know the average ticket price is flawed to an extent as TMR's data is so incomplete that it's next to useless. But it did give me a base price to which I started adding to see at what point the two philosophies evened out - I ended up adding over $260 to their average ticket price before sharing the gate (and I split that 50% 30 ways) redistributed the same 200m that the NHL proposed. So while I know the ticket prices are flawed, I don't think anyone can argue that the average league ticket is anywhere close to $330. I know my low lower bowl seat in Toronto on opening night (Montreal) last year was less than that... around $250-270 and I bought it from a 3rd party site, so I would reason that every other team in the league isn't any different (that the average is well below $330).

I'm still behind splitting TV revenue 30 ways. But that causes other issues. If you're taking a huge chunk of Toronto's TV revenue (or any other top 10 revenue team), then there's going to be issues when you try and take more RS money from them as well.

Quote:
I think that is good reason for doubting the long term viability of this league. There is simply too much revenue disparity (I assume that the local TV contracts are very disparate also) to think it can hang together.

Perhaps the only way is a different way to calculate the salary floor. Otherwise, like other posters have said often, the revenue from the healthier teams dwarfs anything the bottom feeders can bring in, and it always will.
As one of the posters I quoted pointed out... While the NBA is sharing 40-50% of their revenue (whatever the number is), they're actually only re-distributing 3.6% of it. I don't know how true that number is, but it wouldn't surprise me from what I saw when I ran the gate numbers. The NHL proposed to redistribute (share is a poor word when it comes to optics) ~6% of their revenue.

I'm not sure about doubting the long term health... as most teams are close to being okay, and those that are not have some obvious issues that will not be fixed solely by having a lower payroll (although it will certainly help). I think most will agree that Phoenix is a lost cause. However other than that, most of the rest are NOT in bad shape (NYI being the only other team in dire straights, and things will really improve there once they move). Have some competent management, some onice success, spend smartly, and receive that cheque from the league for 13.3m (200m/15). Good news is that cheque will increase with revenues. Move Phoenix to Ontario/Quebec, and it will increase revenues (and the cap), but will add another healthy team and one that would be contributing to the RS system/pot, and allow the #16th team to get access to RS, as Phoenix wouldn't be receiving that cheque anymore.

If that's still not enough, then the league needs to take a good hard look at things - and it can't all be coming from the players at that point (although I would suspect they'll try to go that route again). But unless they're proposing to change something that will drastically alter the league (median revenue?) and something that can almost guarantee success/health, it would be very hard to support them again.

The NHL would need to take a good long hard look at how they want to proceed. Either continue down the path of parity (disagree all you want, but I firmly believe it's a huge part of this growth in the game over the last 7 years), and increase revenue sharing. OR abandon parity, and substantially lower the cap floor. Not to the Pirates level, but change it to a % of the cap, so that teams can still operate on some sort of budget. Things likely wouldn't be as bad as pre-cap, but the difference between the haves and have-nots would become a lot more pronounced than it is today.


Last edited by Riptide: 01-04-2013 at 01:18 PM.
Riptide is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:18 PM
  #74
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,467
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
Here's a couple ideas:
- Don't spend to the cap if you can't afford it
- Don't put teams where the locals don't watch the sport
This.

It makes perfect sense for owners to be losing money if they continue to try to sell a product in a market where there's poor demand. Want to make money? Set up shop where the demand is. Simple.

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:19 PM
  #75
santiclaws
Registered User
 
santiclaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
The majority of owners lose money on their hockey operation. Until they get a deal that makes that operation profitable, the owners aren't losing anything.
First of all, I am far from convinced that the majority lose money even on paper. We have zero actual evidence of that. Second, you can lose money on paper and actually not be losing money. Third, a business that loses money can still be a valuable commodity to a vast enterprise - as a tax writeoff, for instance. Fourth, and maybe most importantly, outside of a few teams, the annual profits is not where the real money is. The real money is in franchise values which have been on average going up, and fast. A second lockout could wreck those franchise values. The owners have LOTS to lose.

santiclaws 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 08:41 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.