HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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, 01:27 PM
  #76
JMT21
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 764
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saillias View Post
I would add Minnesota to that list.
Correct.... not sure how I missed Minnesota & Buffalo.

can't wait to see Parise & Suter visit MTSC....... eventually

JMT21 is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:29 PM
  #77
Lacaar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
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.
Doesn't the fact that the Union members vote for it kind of prove that it's a sham itself?

The DOI is the Union employees/staff deciding not to represent the players (its members or constituents)
Then why is it a member vote? If anything shouldn't this be a vote held by Union Staff?

It's like me asking my customers to allow me to quit my job.
Or perhaps better yet a Politician needing a vote to retire from office.

Lacaar is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:29 PM
  #78
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 39,066
vCash: 500
i think its true that many to a majority break even at best on hockey operations. that doesnt mean that they dont make it up in franchise value as time goes by. of course franchise value can be tied to both the health of the league and the ability of the franchise to compete.

so it cuts both ways.

that said, i love the, "if you are losing money, dont spend to the cap" comments.
we know there are some franchises that are frugal and have internal caps. those teams by and large are ridiculed for doing that around the league and by their own fans.

for many of these teams there is point were not spending on players results in lower ticket sales. they lose on both ends. as a franchise its in a team's best interest to lose money by over spending on players than by under performing in attracting a fan base.

lastly....those elitist that think that only the profitable teams should remain should consult the nhlpa on how they would feel if the nhl decided to contract even one team and the lost jobs that would result in that.

txpd is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:30 PM
  #79
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by santiclaws View Post
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.
And yet there's no proof that they're not losing money.

My issue isn't with those that are losing money yearly who are attempting to be competitive (say Columbus who spent nearly to the cap), but those who are being conservative (Florida, Nashville, St Louis, etc) who still have issues breaking even. I'm not saying that every team needs to post a profit... but they should certainly be able to (or break even) if they're well run and well managed. That's NOT the case today.

__________________
"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, 01:34 PM
  #80
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,251
vCash: 500
Riptide, care to show us a summary of that number crunching you did?

Pepper is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:36 PM
  #81
santiclaws
Registered User
 
santiclaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
And yet there's no proof that they're not losing money.
Precisely. We don't know. The NHL themselves have never said the majority of teams are losing money. It just bugs me how many people state this as a fact, when it is not by any stretch.

santiclaws is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:36 PM
  #82
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 16,809
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
And yet there's no proof that they're not losing money.

My issue isn't with those that are losing money yearly who are attempting to be competitive (say Columbus who spent nearly to the cap), but those who are being conservative (Florida, Nashville, St Louis, etc) who still have issues breaking even. I'm not saying that every team needs to post a profit... but they should certainly be able to (or break even) if they're well run and well managed. That's NOT the case today.
Sharks being a great example of this. Often cited as one of the most well run franchises in the league. Also used as a model for an expansion franchise done right. They are still losing money, reportedly $15m last season.

That does not happen if the league were healthy.

hockeyball is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:40 PM
  #83
99 steps
to the top
 
99 steps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: RV, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 2,712
vCash: 500
who cares if teams are losing money? no one in their right mind buys a pro sports team these days with the goal of getting (more) wealthy. it's a hobby for the already very wealthy, and you just hope to break even financially.

either way, i don't think it is an indictment of the health of the league.

99 steps is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:45 PM
  #84
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,433
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.
The Toronto Maple Leafs, New York Rangers, and Montreal Canadians are separate franchises in the same business. They are not separate companies. Read the NHL bylaws.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:47 PM
  #85
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
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.
Even better, because I see no obligation on the part of the owners to provide the players with a league in which to play.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:47 PM
  #86
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,251
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
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.
Or they could push the player salaries down until they all are atleast at breakeven. Even simpler.

Pepper is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:49 PM
  #87
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
And yet there's no proof that they're not losing money.

My issue isn't with those that are losing money yearly who are attempting to be competitive (say Columbus who spent nearly to the cap), but those who are being conservative (Florida, Nashville, St Louis, etc) who still have issues breaking even. I'm not saying that every team needs to post a profit... but they should certainly be able to (or break even) if they're well run and well managed. That's NOT the case today.
I disagree with that notion.

You're buying into a league with historic franchises and hockey cultures, and you're putting teams in places that have no history or culture.

And then you adopt a salary floor that's largely driven by the historic franchises with hockey cultures...

And you expect to make money?

The only way for Nashville, Florida and Columbus to organically and naturally grow is to dump the salary floor.

Let this team's owners decide how to manage their business. Do they want to go all-in and create an immediate winning tradition and excitement?
Or do they take their time, realizing that for 15-20 years, maybe, they just aren't going to compete for the big stars -- but they can still provide entertainment.

It's their business. They can decide.

With respect to the Blues,like the Avs and Stars, new ownership treats this team like a loser team. So they have a losing business.

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:50 PM
  #88
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,340
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.
Franchise value. Public good will.

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:51 PM
  #89
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by santiclaws View Post
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.
How long can franchise values continue to rise? The bubble in regard to the value of sports franchises is here IMO. Just look at the ridiculous amount the Dodgers for which the Dodgers were sold.

There is no evidence that the teams are operating at a profit. Did not the NHLPA have the ability to audit the books? If so, why has Fehr been quiet on this subject if the majority of the NHL franchises are operating with a profit. I think the fact is that they are not.

The idea that the owners get a tax write off so they should be happy running a charity for their employees (the players) is bogus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Franchise value. Public good will.
I would submit that franchise values are already inflated and if they drop it won't necessarily be due to the lockout.

Public good will? Will you stop attending games? Hockey fans are diehards, they will be back. I expect that a short term drop in attendance is all that we will see.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:52 PM
  #90
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 16,809
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 99 steps View Post
who cares if teams are losing money? no one in their right mind buys a pro sports team these days with the goal of getting (more) wealthy. it's a hobby for the already very wealthy, and you just hope to break even financially.

either way, i don't think it is an indictment of the health of the league.
It's not about getting more wealthy, it's about getting a reasonable return on investment. Some owners care more about hockey than others and thus will accept more losses, but I guarantee you not one of them bought their team saying "I can't wait to lose millions of dollars a year just so I can say I own a hockey team!". Many of them are ok breaking even for tax reasons, but that means they are essentially making money. If the league was making money, we'd have hockey right now, plain as that.

hockeyball is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:55 PM
  #91
yotesreign
Registered User
 
yotesreign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Goldwater Blvd
Country: United States
Posts: 1,538
vCash: 500
Man I went away for a day and a half - and the lockout is still not over????

I was misled on several fronts. I gotta quit reading so-called expert tweets.


:/

yotesreign is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:58 PM
  #92
Flamingo
Registered User
 
Flamingo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
I disagree with that notion.

You're buying into a league with historic franchises and hockey cultures, and you're putting teams in places that have no history or culture.

And then you adopt a salary floor that's largely driven by the historic franchises with hockey cultures...

And you expect to make money?

The only way for Nashville, Florida and Columbus to organically and naturally grow is to dump the salary floor.

Let this team's owners decide how to manage their business. Do they want to go all-in and create an immediate winning tradition and excitement?
Or do they take their time, realizing that for 15-20 years, maybe, they just aren't going to compete for the big stars -- but they can still provide entertainment.

It's their business. They can decide.

With respect to the Blues,like the Avs and Stars, new ownership treats this team like a loser team. So they have a losing business.
I agree with Captain Bob. Wow.

Well, I would say that removing the cap floor would be one solution. The other would be to move franchises to Toronto, Hamilton, Quebec, Seattle, Hartford. Not necessarily North, just bust the rich-market-protection racket.

Flamingo is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 02:03 PM
  #93
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A. suburb
Country: United States
Posts: 8,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by santiclaws View Post
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.
Ok, let's say you're right - the majority of NHL teams are not losing money. They're making profits, some small and some huge.

Shutting down the season is quite the bluff isn't it?

Butch 19 is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 02:04 PM
  #94
Lacaar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
With respect to the Blues,like the Avs and Stars, new ownership treats this team like a loser team. So they have a losing business.

Those three teams alone prove your whole statement wrong.

after 15 to 20 years you may be able to afford a star. I doubt it. After 15-20 years of sucking you won't be able to turn the lights on in the arena let alone pay a player. Who's going to pay to watch a team suck for 20 years and then what? magically fans will show up and there'll be this culture made?

Pheonix has 20 years worth of culture and no one wants to see them. Fans won't show up to watch a team lose perpetually in any city.. yes even Toronto. If you made Toronto the special case where they could only have a 10 mill cap to everone else's 70 million. The fans there would stop going there too. They know there's no hope.

Lacaar is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 02:09 PM
  #95
99 steps
to the top
 
99 steps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: RV, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 2,712
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
I disagree with that notion.

You're buying into a league with historic franchises and hockey cultures, and you're putting teams in places that have no history or culture.

And then you adopt a salary floor that's largely driven by the historic franchises with hockey cultures...

And you expect to make money?

The only way for Nashville, Florida and Columbus to organically and naturally grow is to dump the salary floor.

Let this team's owners decide how to manage their business. Do they want to go all-in and create an immediate winning tradition and excitement?
Or do they take their time, realizing that for 15-20 years, maybe, they just aren't going to compete for the big stars -- but they can still provide entertainment.

It's their business. They can decide.

With respect to the Blues,like the Avs and Stars, new ownership treats this team like a loser team. So they have a losing business.
So you want to enable NHL versions of the Florida Marlins?

99 steps is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 02:09 PM
  #96
steviek3b
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Northern, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 95
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
The Toronto Maple Leafs, New York Rangers, and Montreal Canadians are separate franchises in the same business. They are not separate companies. Read the NHL bylaws.
I understand what you are saying.

However, let's say we have McDonald's or Subway or Tim Horton's or whatever franchise you want.

There is one in Town A that is doing great. There is another in Town B that is owned by another owner and they are doing poorly, not even breaking even. Does the Town A franchise have to share money with the Town B franchise to keep them going?

steviek3b is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 02:12 PM
  #97
Freak187
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Netherlands
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 25
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
I disagree with that notion.

You're buying into a league with historic franchises and hockey cultures, and you're putting teams in places that have no history or culture.

And then you adopt a salary floor that's largely driven by the historic franchises with hockey cultures...

And you expect to make money?

The only way for Nashville, Florida and Columbus to organically and naturally grow is to dump the salary floor.

Let this team's owners decide how to manage their business. Do they want to go all-in and create an immediate winning tradition and excitement?
Or do they take their time, realizing that for 15-20 years, maybe, they just aren't going to compete for the big stars -- but they can still provide entertainment.

It's their business. They can decide.

With respect to the Blues,like the Avs and Stars, new ownership treats this team like a loser team. So they have a losing business.
You expect a franchise to last for 15-20 years without any notable succes? I don't think there is a genuine hockey-culture in Arizona or Florida. There are almost no kids or amateurs playing the game of hockey in these states. So it doesn't make any sense to have a team in states like Arizona or Florida. It will never take-off. And those teams are also not very interesting to play against. Why does the NHL wants teams in those states? Just to compete with the other leagues?

Freak187 is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 02:13 PM
  #98
Hawkscap
Registered User
 
Hawkscap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,395
vCash: 500
Franchise values are going up?

Hawkscap is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 02:13 PM
  #99
Clusterpuck
Registered User
 
Clusterpuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 105
vCash: 500
I have seen several posts on here implying that the owners are the losers here. I am just wondering how the owners are the real losers here? I'm not trying to be a jerk or belittle anyones opinion. I guess I just see things different.

True, the owners are not generating any money from their franchises. The fact is that even under a full season many teams lost money in the end. In order for most owners to generate profit, they need the things they are demanding (50%, make whole, lower cap). The owners can afford to drag this out as long as they want. They are highly successful business men and generate their billions and millions from means other than hockey. If you don't believe me, google some of these owners and you will see they're not exactly strapped for cash. The only way they lose is if they get hammered in court. And to be honest, I don't see that happening. Say what you will about Bettman (I am not a fan) but he has set up the owner for success in court.

Now on to the players. What do they really have to gain in all of this. If they signed the deal this minute, they would be loser no matter what. They will have each lost millions that they will never get back (not to mention possible permanent damage to the sport). They are not businessmen. Many will never get this money back. They are athletes. They have a limited time to maximize upon their earning potential. I am not trying to sound arrogant, but many barely have a high school level education and no marketable skills outside of hockey. What is a 4th line thug going to bring to a business? Losing a season would be disastrous. Many live above their means and have bills piling up. Watch the documentary "Broke" for more insight.

Now I don't like the way either side has played this. Each has acted childish and alienated the fans in an almost unforgivable manor. I believe both Bettman and Fehr should be relieved of their duties next week whether the cba is signed or not. This is just a small rant from a frustrated hockey fan. I am only a student and welcome all points of view to my post either for or against. I only ask any view of this be conveyed in a civil and respectful manner for those who may not agree.

Clusterpuck is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 02:14 PM
  #100
santiclaws
Registered User
 
santiclaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,894
vCash: 500
If this is true, a huge development.

Andy Strickland ‏@andystrickland

#NHL players will have a chance to vote on whatever offer exists at the deadline...players give me the impression they'll vote to play

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 04:57 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.