The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
The NHLPA again has publically said something that will continue to hurt them in the PR war that a strike/lockout often is. After the NHL rejected today's luxury tax offer, Trevor Linden said the following.... "At some point the owners need to understand the players will never accept a salary cap or any system arbitrarily linking payroll to league revenues."
What that says loud and clear is that they don't care about the owners ability to make a profit, or ticket prices(which means they don't care about the average fan).
They don't care how much money the league is making. They want their money first. That is pretty hard to defend. Just from a PR perspective saying they won't accept a salary cap may work fine, but saying they won't accept any link of payroll to revenue of any kind at any percentage says loud and clear that they don't care if any owner makes a single dollar. They want every dollar they can get out of the game regardless of the damage that it might do to the league.
EJ Radek reported on ESPN News that it was the same proposal as before with adjusted numbers. Luxury Tax(threshold at $40m), a one time 5% rollback in salaries, adjustment in entry level contracts(unsigned drafted players sold down the river because they dont have a vote yet), revenue sharing.
For Radek's part, he suggested that he thinks a deal could be done, if the owners were willing to come off the hard cap and the players were willing the drop the threshold to $35m, give up arbitration, manditory 10% increases in contracts for contracts under the league average, and lowing the buyout rate from two-thirds to one half.
EJ Radek reported on ESPN News that it was the same proposal as before with adjusted numbers. Luxury Tax(threshold at $40m)...
Apparently, they upped the tax to $50 million. Why would you take a step backward at this point of the game?
"The NHLPA says it was a good offer because the revenue sharing component in their proposal was reduced to closer to what the league might find acceptable.
The NHL says the proposal was a total farce because the luxury tax threshold proposed by the players went from $40 million in last year's offer to $50 million in this offer."
For me personally, I find it rather hard to believe that all of these owners are losing ALL of this money yet the majority of them are not scrambling to sell off this losing component on their business.
While I believe that there are a few teams losing money I put no stock into the Levitt report, none whatsoever.
For me personally, I find it rather hard to believe that all of these owners are losing ALL of this money yet the majority of them are not scrambling to sell off this losing component on their business.
For me personally, I find it rather hard to believe that all of these owners are losing ALL of this money yet the majority of them are not scrambling to sell off this losing component on their business.
While I believe that there are a few teams losing money I put no stock into the Levitt report, none whatsoever.
Many of them are looking for buyers... Disney is an example. However, no one wants an NHL team at the moment.
For me personally, I find it rather hard to believe that all of these owners are losing ALL of this money yet the majority of them are not scrambling to sell off this losing component on their business.
While I believe that there are a few teams losing money I put no stock into the Levitt report, none whatsoever.
The NHLPA finished there audit of the 30 teams last week. They have kept suspiciously silent as to what they found. Their silence makes me believe that they found that the NHL had been telling the truth regarding the millions of dollors of losses per year! If the NHLPA found otherwise the would have been all over the press spouting that the NHL lies etc..etc..
Owners of professional sports teams are extremely wealthy and can afford to lose some money for the privilege of owning a team. That does not mean they want to continue to invest more and more money in a business that has no hope of ever making a profit.
The NHLPA finished there audit of the 30 teams last week. They have kept suspiciously silent as to what they found. Their silence makes me believe that they found that the NHL had been telling the truth regarding the millions of dollors of losses per year! If the NHLPA found otherwise the would have been all over the press spouting that the NHL lies etc..etc..
Most of me agrees with that, but putting on the devil's advocate hat I'll throw out the possibility that the NHLPA representatives had to sign a non-disclosure agreement before getting to see the books.
While I believe that there are a few teams losing money I put no stock into the Levitt report, none whatsoever.
Well, thanks for your opinion on the work of one of the world's most respected economists.
We'll put lots and lots of stock in it.
By the way... Einstein didn't know what he was talking about.
---------------------------------------------
The original poster hit it bang on... the players just want to get as much as they think they can get... that is their only concern.
What they don't understand is that they haven't 'deserved' what they've had for the past ten years, and they should just be happy that they sucked the owners dry while they could. They won't though... and we probably won't see hockey again for a long time.
If the 'fans' of the game had any collective brains, they'd ALL rally to the side of the owners. Were all public opinion polls to be concluded with %90+ support of the owners, we'd have hockey again real soon.
The original poster hit it bang on... the players just want to get as much as they think they can get... that is their only concern.
I would argue that all employees, in all fields, feel this way - they want to maximize their earnings (both in absolute terms, and relative to their coworkers). Everyone wants to be paid according to the value they feel they bring to their organization (whether it is a hockey team, an ad agency, or a convenience store). It's up to the owner(s) of said organization to take a more macro view, and decide what that person should be paid, based on historic/anticipated revenue - part of which will be influenced by the contribution of the employee.
Quote:
What they don't understand is that they haven't 'deserved' what they've had for the past ten years, and they should just be happy that they sucked the owners dry while they could. They won't though... and we probably won't see hockey again for a long time.
I disagree partially - the players certainly deserved whatever they were able to earn - it's not their fault the owners decided to pay what was asked. If I asked my boss to pay me $1M+, and he agreed - well more power to me! If that's what the going rate is, and what he thinks I'm worth, so be it.
The problem is that the current situation seems to dictate a change in S.O.P. It's clear that some sort of rebalancing needs to take place - either the NHL needs to start earning NFL/MLB/NBA-type revenues to make these high salaries make sound business sense (unlikely); or, the salaries need to decrease to help even out the bottom line. The owners let it get to this sorry state, and I certainly understand the players not wanting to derail the gravy train, but something has to give.
Unfortunately it seems like both sides are determined to shoot themselves in the collective feet on this. I'm afraid they're not seeing the forest for the trees though, and are severely overestimating hockey's importance in the overall North American sports marketplace (US mainly). A lot of people won't bat an eye if it's gone for 1 or more years. It'll be tough though to make up any lost ground once it returns - most people will be more than happy to turn their sports attention to football/basketball/nascar/poker.
The trouble MLB had getting people to be interested again after their last strike should be a solemn warning - and baseball was infinitely more popular than hockey to start. They're still trying to regain the ground they lost.
I thought the players would have more respect for the game of hockey and the NHL's history, they most definitely do not care about the fans because WE pay rediculous prices to go to games. Recently ESPN showed it cost the average family about 230 dollars to go to a game, but I suppose as long as people are willing to pay these prices nothing will happen.
A salary cap is not that evil, I thought in the end the players love of the game would overcome greed...I guess I was wrong.
The NHLPA again has publically said something that will continue to hurt them in the PR war
The NHLPA isn't interested in winning a PR war because they can't, because most fans are reactionary zombies who only listen to one side of the argument and believe that the union should have restrictions imposed upon them for the actions of the owners. Oh, and if you believe that a salary cap will actually lead to reduced ticket prices, I have some prime New Joisey swampland to sell you.
The NHLPA finished there audit of the 30 teams last week. They have kept suspiciously silent as to what they found. Their silence makes me believe that they found that the NHL had been telling the truth regarding the millions of dollors of losses per year! If the NHLPA found otherwise the would have been all over the press spouting that the NHL lies etc..etc..
Owners of professional sports teams are extremely wealthy and can afford to lose some money for the privilege of owning a team. That does not mean they want to continue to invest more and more money in a business that has no hope of ever making a profit.
I'm going to assume that the NHL correctly reports their earnings. Let's keep in mind though, that a lot of the loss is generated through the amortization of things such as planes and arenas, many of which have other uses and aren't even depreciating at the rate used for tax purposes. Also, if these venues are generating other revenues, it's not too hard, and pretty reasonable to start another company to simply be the owners of the asset and lease the asset to the team. If a team is losing money on its arena simply because it's paying the owner's other company a huge amount for the lease, the owner isn't actually losing money while the team is. There are a lot of ways to make numbers look a certain way, and many of them are reasonable and legal.
That being said, I'm in complete agreement with a luxury tax (2x or 3x) at 35 mil and I believe in the right to revenue sharing. I'm pretty sure that some of the owner's aren't interested in revenue sharing but I figure 35 or 30 mil luxury tax is what we'll end up with. If the Canucks can turn a profit with a payroll of 45 mil, most teams should be able to earn a profit with a payroll around 35.
The trouble MLB had getting people to be interested again after their last strike should be a solemn warning - and baseball was infinitely more popular than hockey to start. They're still trying to regain the ground they lost.
Yes they had trouble getting fans back after the last strike but lucky for them they had McGwire & Sosa chasing the record books. Its pretty well documented now that when Big Mac broke the record that yr that interest in the game returned to pre-strike status. Bonds has helped continue to keep the fans in the seats and interested in the game with his pursuit of Hank Aaron.
Point of this: when an athlete can bring attention to the sport for some reason, the sport can rebound. Why did I point this out? Because the league could have a potential savior in Crosby...if they can build him up correctly (and figure a way to open up the game so there's a more offensive game like in the late 70s & early 80s), the fan interest in the game can return quickly. There are no other players currently in the league that can transcend the game like certain players of the past were able to. If the league had just one (though a competition between 2 is more healthy), then they'll regain those fans with less issues than everyone thinks.
The NHLPA again has publically said something that will continue to hurt them in the PR war that a strike/lockout often is. After the NHL rejected today's luxury tax offer, Trevor Linden said the following.... "At some point the owners need to understand the players will never accept a salary cap or any system arbitrarily linking payroll to league revenues."
What that says loud and clear is that they don't care about the owners ability to make a profit, or ticket prices(which means they don't care about the average fan).
They don't care how much money the league is making. They want their money first. That is pretty hard to defend. Just from a PR perspective saying they won't accept a salary cap may work fine, but saying they won't accept any link of payroll to revenue of any kind at any percentage says loud and clear that they don't care if any owner makes a single dollar. They want every dollar they can get out of the game regardless of the damage that it might do to the league.
It's incredible that you posted that, I said the exact same thing to a friend.
When I heard Linden say that part on TSN it really pissed me off. I immediately said : ungrateful spoiled brats. If they don't care about the financial health of the league that is making them rich, then I hope when a few teams start disapearing players like Irbe and Linden find themselves without a place to play. That would be ironic.
