HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Cool idea for CBA Game...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-06-2003, 02:00 PM
  #1
Fire Sather
Play Like a Pug
 
Fire Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 19,455
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to Fire Sather
Cool idea for CBA Game...

I dont know how many would be intrested, but each poster can take a potsion as an owner of an NHL team, and we could also have some NHLPA members, along with Commish Bettman. We could all try and work togther and see if we, pretending to be the Owners and NHLPA. as a group could agree to a new CBA... Would this work?

Fire Sather is offline  
Old
12-06-2003, 02:37 PM
  #2
Belamorte
Feed Your Head
 
Belamorte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North American Scum
Posts: 2,050
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nYr LunDmArK 21
I dont know how many would be intrested, but each poster can take a potsion as an owner of an NHL team, and we could also have some NHLPA members, along with Commish Bettman. We could all try and work togther and see if we, pretending to be the Owners and NHLPA. as a group could agree to a new CBA... Would this work?
hehe ok Ill play the part of part of the NHLPA...

Owners why dont you open up your books so we can really see if you are losing money or if it is just a sham... I think it is a sham but you wont prove it... Why would you, the owners (who are all multi-millioniars if not billionairs and apparently smart businessmen) keep investing in sports teams if they are losing so much money...Obvious to me that we (the players) are not seeing the entire picture...

You (the owners) are signing cheques for 8,9,10 + milliion a year for good players and over 2 million for average or below average players... None of us (the players) held a gun to you head and said you had to pay us this but you did by your own free will now suddenly you wanna change... You have "p1ssed in the bath water" and now you want us (the players) to clean up the mess you created... Forget it...

Belamorte is offline  
Old
12-09-2003, 02:10 PM
  #3
Belamorte
Feed Your Head
 
Belamorte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North American Scum
Posts: 2,050
vCash: 500
Heeh guess it sums it up... There is no argument or "give and take"; until the owners open the books fully up and prove to the players (and the rest of the world) that they are actually losing money, this will be a stale-mate... ie.long long long strike/lock-out...

Multi-millionaire/billionaire owners paying employees huge money then complaining they are losing money doesnt wash with me... These owners are not stupid people, they didnt get to be where they are by throwing money away...I think they are crying wolf and I bet the NHLPA thinks the same....(with perhaps 3-5 possible exceptions and, if those 3 or so teams cant make it there are more than enough cities that would welcome a NHL team to replace those who cant make it)

Belamorte is offline  
Old
12-09-2003, 03:33 PM
  #4
The Rage
Registered User
 
The Rage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Stamford Bridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,791
vCash: 500
Buffaloed posted this link a while ago: http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/20.../094tab_2.html
Basically, if forbes (an objective source) is saying the NHL is losing money, then it's probably true.

The Rage is offline  
Old
12-09-2003, 04:21 PM
  #5
Belamorte
Feed Your Head
 
Belamorte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North American Scum
Posts: 2,050
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolguy3650
Buffaloed posted this link a while ago: http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/20.../094tab_2.html
Basically, if forbes (an objective source) is saying the NHL is losing money, then it's probably true.
Well thats nice but until the books are opened up I dont believe it... These people (owners) are not stupid and it is real easy to move money around to make it look like your losing money...Farmers have been doing it forever, but somehow the smart ones stay in business and the not so smart ones get eaten up by someone else...

(Have you ever met a farmer who admited to making a buck? I havent, and I am a farmer, yet somehow most continue to operate.?.?. I would never admit that I ever made a dime yet me and my family have been in business for over 100 years, we lose money every year but we still have a business???? see the cooralation?)

I guess I just wonder about all the secretcey on the owners side... Everyone knows what the players are making, why not show us what the owners are making/losing???

Ill say it again - millionairs/billionairs dont buy/invest in and hang-on to businesses that lose money...If they did they wouldnt be rich very long...

Belamorte is offline  
Old
12-09-2003, 04:31 PM
  #6
The Rage
Registered User
 
The Rage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Stamford Bridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,791
vCash: 500
While it might be that the owners aren't telling the truth, the fact is that Forbes has looked at the NHL's revenues and expenses, and has come to the conclusion that the league is losing money. The owners, for the most part, simply can't lie about ticket prices, salaries etc. Forbes is probably not completely accurate, but I think they'd be pretty close. For the record, the owners claimed the league is losing 300 million, while Forbes cited 120 million, so you're atleast partly right, but the fact remains that, to the best of our knowledge, the league is losing money.

The Rage is offline  
Old
12-09-2003, 04:57 PM
  #7
Belamorte
Feed Your Head
 
Belamorte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North American Scum
Posts: 2,050
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolguy3650
While it might be that the owners aren't telling the truth, the fact is that Forbes has looked at the NHL's revenues and expenses, and has come to the conclusion that the league is losing money. The owners, for the most part, simply can't lie about ticket prices, salaries etc. Forbes is probably not completely accurate, but I think they'd be pretty close. For the record, the owners claimed the league is losing 300 million, while Forbes cited 120 million, so you're atleast partly right, but the fact remains that, to the best of our knowledge, the league is losing money.
Ok fair enough I will go along with the Forbes number of 120 mils (even though I dont believe it)... If that number is true I would assume that it is a just a few teams losing that ( we hear numbers of a few teams losing 20+ mils a year)... Those teams could easlily be relocated to places with willing owners with deep pockets...Pittsburg = hello Portland, Carolina = hello Houston etc...

However, that is not really my point.... My point is "whos fault is it that teams are losing money (if they are) and players being overpayed" ?

What it comes down to is that the owners made their bed and now they have to lay in it; if it means a few of the teams have to relocate then so be it... I dont feel sorry for any of them...

This is a hardline approach and I think that is the approach that the NHLPA will take and that is why this strike/lockout could be long long long...

Belamorte is offline  
Old
12-09-2003, 06:05 PM
  #8
The Rage
Registered User
 
The Rage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Stamford Bridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,791
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kickinghorse
Ok fair enough I will go along with the Forbes number of 120 mils (even though I dont believe it)... If that number is true I would assume that it is a just a few teams losing that ( we hear numbers of a few teams losing 20+ mils a year)... Those teams could easlily be relocated to places with willing owners with deep pockets...Pittsburg = hello Portland, Carolina = hello Houston etc...

However, that is not really my point.... My point is "whos fault is it that teams are losing money (if they are) and players being overpayed" ?

What it comes down to is that the owners made their bed and now they have to lay in it; if it means a few of the teams have to relocate then so be it... I dont feel sorry for any of them...

This is a hardline approach and I think that is the approach that the NHLPA will take and that is why this strike/lockout could be long long long...
If you click on the link, you can see that many teams are losing money. It pleases the soul that the rangers lost more than oilers last year, and that they also had a worse team. In any case, relocation because of losses would not be a great idea. Why should a city lose its team because management performed poorly? Relocation, if it were to occur, should be based on market strength, not financial losses. The two are related, but they are far from the same thing (clearly New York is a better market than Edmonton, for example). As far as Portland and Houston go, I think Houston might deserve a team, but I'm unsure about Portland. However, the northwestern states are more "hockey country" than some other NHL markets will ever be, and I'm puzzled as to why there isn't at least one team in the area. I wouldn't mind moving the Pengiuns and Hurricanes to Portland and Houston, but relocating those two teams is not going to fix all of the leagues problems.

The Rage is offline  
Old
12-09-2003, 07:02 PM
  #9
Belamorte
Feed Your Head
 
Belamorte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North American Scum
Posts: 2,050
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolguy3650
If you click on the link, you can see that many teams are losing money. It pleases the soul that the rangers lost more than oilers last year, and that they also had a worse team. In any case, relocation because of losses would not be a great idea. Why should a city lose its team because management performed poorly? Relocation, if it were to occur, should be based on market strength, not financial losses. The two are related, but they are far from the same thing (clearly New York is a better market than Edmonton, for example). As far as Portland and Houston go, I think Houston might deserve a team, but I'm unsure about Portland. However, the northwestern states are more "hockey country" than some other NHL markets will ever be, and I'm puzzled as to why there isn't at least one team in the area. I wouldn't mind moving the Pengiuns and Hurricanes to Portland and Houston, but relocating those two teams is not going to fix all of the leagues problems.

I did not mean to imply that those were the only 2 markets that a NHL team would be good for...(however those markets could support a team) there are many others as welll... But, if one thinks that the NYR lose money I think they are out to lunch....

My point is - if teams are losing so much money why would they sign the players they do for the amounts that they do (ie. Bobby Holik, Martian Lapointe, Cujo etc...)... It is obvious to me that these are "good" signings that will not bankrupt the team...(otherwise they would not be done) (These are not dummies that own these teams)

It is not the players fault that the management made poor decisions...The owners/GMs need to get their house in order before they decide to take it out on the the players....

The owners want all their bad decisions to be solved at the blame of the players yet they are unwilling to provide the proof that they are actually loosing moneys...


I would agree a few teams are losing money but in every business that is the way it goes.... If Edmonton/Carolina/Pittsburg etc can not compete in that business so be it, there are several other cities and/with owners to take their place....

This is not a "hobby" anymore it is a business and it is time to step up or step out...


Would I be sad to see Ottawa/Clagary/Edmonton/Carolina/Pittsburg/and every other struggling team move to better markets go? Yes I would... But the owners broght it about themselves.... And much of it started with Edmonton signing Gretzky (an unproven kid) to a 1mil$ contract...

(I want to see a strike/lockout as little as the next guy but I dont see it being resoved because of the owners... it is their fault why it has come to this and I dont see it getting resolved anytime soon)

Belamorte is offline  
Old
12-09-2003, 08:36 PM
  #10
The Rage
Registered User
 
The Rage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Stamford Bridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,791
vCash: 500
I don't see why it's surprising to see the Rangers lose money, as they are a horrible team that has an astronomical payroll. The problem is, this propaganda of how rich the Rangers are, and how poor the Canadian franchises are, has distorted people's viewpoints. In any case, that's a side issue.

This might be bias on my part, but I think moving a team out of Ottawa, Edmonton, or Calgary would be foolish. Unlike Carolina and so on, the Canadian teams live in the heartland of hockey, the one place in the world where hockey is religion. Even if those franchises were struggling, they are an integral part of the backbone of the league. Would it be healthy to only have teams in cities where the sport is considered second rate? No, I don't think so. Even today, over 50% of NHLers come from Canada, and if the NHL was to lose some of its presence in that country, I think the league would be in a far weaker position. In cities where hockey is nothing more than an entertainment source, support for a team can rise and fall, or disappear all together. In a city where hockey is woven into the culture, support will always remain strong.

In any case, the lack of success of Canadian franchises is much over rated. The financial numbers from the forbes report prove this point, to a certain extent. Canadian markets might be small, but the NHL is the biggest event in those markets. Consider this: Denver has a greater population of 1.8 million (numbers taken from Goodes atlas). Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa have greater populations of around 1 million (not so sure about Ottawa). When you consider the fact that the Avalanche have to compete against three other major sports teams, I see no reason why the Canadian markets are weaker than Denver (and no one would doubt that Denver is a strong market). The thing is, Calgary and Edmonton have not drafted as well as Colorado, and that is why they have not achieved the same level of success. Ottawa has drafted well, and that is why they are making money while simlulatneously competeing for the cup. As for their bancrupacy, that had nothing to with the market, and everything to do with Bryden's gross mismanagement of the team's debt.

The bottom line is that the Canadian franchises are strong, and vital to the league success. Distortion from the media has said otherwise, but members of the media make many assumptions and are hardly scientific in their dealings with the facts. I have a backround in pharmacology, and I have seen first hand how the media has misrepresented the issue of drug abuse in society. I believe a similar misrepresentation has happened in the hockey world.

The Rage is offline  
Old
12-09-2003, 08:54 PM
  #11
garry1221
Registered User
 
garry1221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Walled Lake, Mi
Posts: 2,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to garry1221
Quote:
Originally Posted by nYr LunDmArK 21
I dont know how many would be intrested, but each poster can take a potsion as an owner of an NHL team, and we could also have some NHLPA members, along with Commish Bettman. We could all try and work togther and see if we, pretending to be the Owners and NHLPA. as a group could agree to a new CBA... Would this work?
it's an interesting concept, i think with the right group of ppl it could work, if there were enough interested it'd lead to some great discussion/debates i'd be for it, if a group, small or large agreed i'd be a part *owners' side*

garry1221 is offline  
Old
12-09-2003, 09:12 PM
  #12
The Rage
Registered User
 
The Rage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Stamford Bridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,791
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by garry1221
it's an interesting concept, i think with the right group of ppl it could work, if there were enough interested it'd lead to some great discussion/debates i'd be for it, if a group, small or large agreed i'd be a part *owners' side*
I'll sign up for the owners as well. I'll choose Edmonton. I think this could only work if we ignore our actual beliefs and try to properly fulfill the role we're taking.

The Rage is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 08:31 AM
  #13
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,455
vCash: 500
I will also volunteer to be an management representative....

Vancouver Canucks here.(I would have prefered to be the Oilers... )

For the whole thing to work, we would need a moderator, rules, how about getting Mizral to set up specific chat times...possible online chat meetings would get things going...

I have a website and could post valueable points, agreements and information as required...

This could be a hoot..

Slats432 is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 09:24 AM
  #14
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slats432
I will also volunteer to be an management representative....
I don't think this can go anywhere. The owners want a salary cap and they are prepared to offer earlier free agency to get it. The players will deal in many different ways, but no cap and no limits on what the teams can collectively spend. This is no compromise on this issue. Either one side or the other will win.

If the players win, the league does not change much. The owners will get some concessions that will presumably improve their bottom line, but the league structure will stay pretty much the same.

I'd like to see a management representatives assume they win - they do get a cap in exchange for earlier free agency. This will require a long labour dispute. There is no hockey next year, but then the players cave. Hockey resumes in 2005.

How does the Edmonton Oiler representative see the league shaping up? How will management in Edmonton take advantage of the new CBA? What will change for the New York Rangers? The Toronto Maple Leafs? The Ottawa Senators?

Which teams will benefit? How? Which ones will be hurt? How will they adjust?

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 10:15 AM
  #15
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
I don't think this can go anywhere. The owners want a salary cap and they are prepared to offer earlier free agency to get it. The players will deal in many different ways, but no cap and no limits on what the teams can collectively spend. This is no compromise on this issue. Either one side or the other will win.

If the players win, the league does not change much. The owners will get some concessions that will presumably improve their bottom line, but the league structure will stay pretty much the same.

I'd like to see a management representatives assume they win - they do get a cap in exchange for earlier free agency. This will require a long labour dispute. There is no hockey next year, but then the players cave. Hockey resumes in 2005.

How does the Edmonton Oiler representative see the league shaping up? How will management in Edmonton take advantage of the new CBA? What will change for the New York Rangers? The Toronto Maple Leafs? The Ottawa Senators?

Which teams will benefit? How? Which ones will be hurt? How will they adjust?

Tom
I think it would be an interesting exercise to see if HF posters could get together and negotiate an agreement and what it would look like. Each person would be a part of the process with whichever designation they have, and try to fulfill the needs of his designation.

I am all for giving it a shot.

Slats432 is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 11:07 AM
  #16
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slats432
I think it would be an interesting exercise to see if HF posters could get together and negotiate an agreement and what it would look like. Each person would be a part of the process with whichever designation they have, and try to fulfill the needs of his designation.

I am all for giving it a shot.
Well, okay, but whoever plays Bob Goodenow is going to start by saying "Forget a salary cap. When you want to talk about an agreement without the so-called cost certainty, give me a call."

What now? If the owners agree to drop that demand, a deal would get signed in real life tomorrow. If not, there will be an lockout period for an indefinite period starting next September. Where do you see give and take on that issue? Everything else can be resolved with give and take, but not that. On that issue, either the players win or the owners lose, or vice versa.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 11:30 AM
  #17
The Rage
Registered User
 
The Rage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Stamford Bridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,791
vCash: 500
As far as a hard cap goes, you're right, it will either happen or it won't. However, I think a hard cap will never happen, even in the event of a prolonged lock out, as the players can simply hold out longer than the teams (for a variety of reasons). So maybe we should just scrap the argument over a hard cap, which will inevitabely devolve into "we need one!" and "no we don't!". There's still alot of other stuff we can argue over--luxury tax, soft cap, revenue sharing, unrestricted free agency age, rookie salary cap, minimum qualifying offers and so on. I don't think any of those things are all or none. Even in the case of a luxury tax or soft cap, I don't think either side would have much of a problem with those proposals, but they would certainly argue over the threshold salaries.

The Rage is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 11:44 AM
  #18
Belamorte
Feed Your Head
 
Belamorte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North American Scum
Posts: 2,050
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Well, okay, but whoever plays Bob Goodenow is going to start by saying "Forget a salary cap. When you want to talk about an agreement without the so-called cost certainty, give me a call."

What now? If the owners agree to drop that demand, a deal would get signed in real life tomorrow. If not, there will be an lockout period for an indefinite period starting next September. Where do you see give and take on that issue? Everything else can be resolved with give and take, but not that. On that issue, either the players win or the owners lose, or vice versa.

Tom

exactly the point... Except I would take it one step further, and that is I believe the players could and would come to some kind of cost-certainty agreement if they were given real proof that the owners are infact in as dire straights as they want everyone to believe...

Belamorte is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 11:57 AM
  #19
topshelf331
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Stl
Country: United States
Posts: 2,199
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to topshelf331 Send a message via Yahoo to topshelf331
I like to read posts about the looming cba, the only problem is every post gets longer and longer, until there are only around 3 posts per page. Someday it will just be one big post, im waiting for this day.

topshelf331 is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 07:19 PM
  #20
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kickinghorse
exactly the point... Except I would take it one step further, and that is I believe the players could and would come to some kind of cost-certainty agreement if they were given real proof that the owners are infact in as dire straights as they want everyone to believe...
I don't think the players will go for it no matter what, but that is a digression. There is an interesting idea within this thread. The owners are not all on the same page, for obvious reasons. But okay, coolguy 3650 owns the Oilers. Somebody else owns the Coyotes. The Predators.

When I am pessimistic, I think the players will cave. Let us suppose they do that. We know what we have under the arrangement the players want. What do we get if the players do fold? My guess is that if they do, the cap is $55 million next year with free agency at 29. The year after the cap drops to $50 million and free agency to 27. The third year we see an adjustment but it depends on the revenue split the first year.

Do the Oilers go for that? Is that enough? How will it change things for them going forward? Do the Rangers or the Leafs go for it? Their answer may be different. How does the Leaf owner see it changing things for them? Ottawa and Tampa.

What's your team? Is it big or small? A winner or a loser? Profitable or not? Young or old? Expensive or cheap? Canadian or American? How will that arrangement - a salary cap, tweaked toward soft of not and earlier free agency - affect your team?

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
12-10-2003, 07:27 PM
  #21
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
I don't think the players will go for it no matter what, but that is a digression. There is an interesting idea within this thread. The owners are not all on the same page, for obvious reasons. But okay, coolguy 3650 owns the Oilers. Somebody else owns the Coyotes. The Predators.

When I am pessimistic, I think the players will cave. Let us suppose they do that. We know what we have under the arrangement the players want. What do we get if the players do fold? My guess is that if they do, the cap is $55 million next year with free agency at 29. The year after the cap drops to $50 million and free agency to 27. The third year we see an adjustment but it depends on the revenue split the first year.

Do the Oilers go for that? Is that enough? How will it change things for them going forward? Do the Rangers or the Leafs go for it? Their answer may be different. How does the Leaf owner see it changing things for them? Ottawa and Tampa.

What's your team? Is it big or small? A winner or a loser? Profitable or not? Young or old? Expensive or cheap? Canadian or American? How will that arrangement - a salary cap, tweaked toward soft of not and earlier free agency - affect your team?

Tom
So if you don't want to be part of the exercise then say so, and move on.

That isn't an insult...the guy wants to get a bunch of people to try to negotiate a mock CBA and see what they come up with...what is wrong with that...if you don't want to play a part and think it is a dumb idea...then that is fine..you don't need to...but let those who would find it interesting do so without poo pooing the idea.

Slats432 is offline  
Old
12-11-2003, 12:22 PM
  #22
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kickinghorse
it is real easy to move money around to make it look like your losing money...Farmers have been doing it forever, but somehow the smart ones stay in business and the not so smart ones get eaten up by someone else...

(Have you ever met a farmer who admited to making a buck? I havent, and I am a farmer, yet somehow most continue to operate.?.?. I would never admit that I ever made a dime yet me and my family have been in business for over 100 years, we lose money every year but we still have a business????

And few people understand business better than a Canadian farmer. These NHL city slickers may may fall for it, but there's no flies here. This is probably a good thing for the PA, its got a large number of Canadian farm boys in it. Come on Bettman, give us your best shot. I dont think you know who you're messin with

There are some really interesting numbers in forbes that are worth looking at a bit closer since we mention them so often.

1. One of the interesting ones that never seems to get mentioned is the annualized increase in franchise value since the last owners purchase. If an owner gets a 5% cash return after accounting trickery, plus a 6% increase in franchise value, (plus perhaps interest expense paid before profit), they can be making a lot more than a profit and loss statement would demonstrate. In fact even after a collective $120mil paper loss (4mil each), they could still be making money. Ask a farmer. Perhaps they could get their $10mil each in lockout warchest back by not locking the players out eh. $120mil loss turns into $180mil profit? Poof!

2. The difference in franchise values varys from 270 mil down to $90mil. The revenues allegedly vary between $113mil and $43 . Losses seem independent of where you are on this scale. In fact the biggest loss was by the top revenue earner, and the 5th biggest profit by the smallest revenue earner. What would be the effect on the boardrooms of this Robin Hood revenue restructuring? Who in fact do you call rich? If a franchise had its salarys capped and was making a 84% roi, should the goverenment regulate their ticket prices? Wouldnt that be gouging otherwise?

3. The Rangers had revenues of $113mil and lost $7mil? While teams with half that revenue made money and enjoyed playoff success. hmmm.

4. The Rangers debt to franchise value is 92% while Boston is at 50% and Chicago is 0? Am i reading this right? Original 6 franchises. Hello boardroom of NYR. Hello Mcfly ... knock knock.

5. Minnesota's franchise value and revenues are equal to Montreals and higher than the Isles and Blues. Columbus is similar to NJ and StL. LA's debt which includes arenas is 72%. Surely they arent counting Shania Twain unrelated arena expenses. They still made money as the 9th highest franchise value. Yet they opened their books and convinced everyone of impending doom.

6. Vancouvers revenues were $66 mil? I recall an eye opening blog Tom did surmising their revenues. $66mil in revenue is awfully suspiciously low. The team is now apparently getting 700k in earnings before taxes, interest, and depreciation, and has been increasing to 125mil in franchise value at an 11%/yr clip?

7. Pitsburgh has been increasing in franchise value and making a 5mil profit since Mario bought the team. Why should they fold? They are making more money than most of the other teams. When Pit and Phoenix have developed teams making a move in the playoffs, they will have new arenas and the revenues to afford them. Its perfectly sensible that Phoenix would be incurring large start up costs as it ties its money up in real estate and a new arena.

8. Stanley Cup finalists Anaheim and lottery pick Florida have the same franchise value, the same revenues, and the same $10mil operating loss with vastly different payrolls. Too bad about that warchest eh.

9. The Atlanta Thrashers are valued at $110mil, generate the same revenues as Ottawa, had a mere 900k paper operating loss, and were allegedly sold for nothing this summer because things are so bad.

10. Chicago is the 8th most valuable team with revenues higher than Stl, NJ, Ott, Mtl, Minn.Vanc.??? How is this possible in Chicago where everyone there is a fan of another team that they actually get to see on TV. How can this be true. Where is Wirtz making all this money from with 5000 in attendance? Is he extorting people at the door. Some sort of protection racket? Has anyone checked the pension fund lately? (JUST KIDDIN Wild Willy Wirtz, dont sue me too.)
.
11. We've seen Ottawa's revenue stream. They had a $31mil payroll, a 19mil non-hockey expense, plus farm team, travel, coaches, lockout warchest, etc. Last year they went bankrupt and had to borrow $24mil to meet payroll. And they lost apparently $2mil. Well we had to pay Leschyshyn. Im having trouble reconciling this with Forbes' revenues. Too bad the Sens couldnt of got half the Corel Centers Shania Twain concert money from the advertisements on the boards put up for her shows, and the suite sales at hockey games for her shows. With half that profit from the distinct and separate Corel Center business, they become one of the most profitable teams in the league. Perhaps Ottawa is a big market and its unfair to expect LA, NYI, Chi, and StL to be able to do this. They have to pay their expenses in more expensive american dollars after all.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
01-20-2004, 11:00 PM
  #23
Fire Sather
Play Like a Pug
 
Fire Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 19,455
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to Fire Sather
Seems like people loved the idea and it just kind of died. If we really want to get serious about this, like slats said we'd need a Mod and well need to organize it. Everyone post what potison they will want to take... if we get enough we can the start serious stuff.

Fire Sather 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 12:03 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.