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 thing that I don`t understand with the CBA negotiations is how the NHLPA can absolutely and completely reject any type of cap or "cost certainty" as the owners put it. Who do they think they are? I mean here is a league that is barely even hanging on as being one of the four major league sports in North America and consistently has lower ratings than the likes of bowling and poker. Two of the other major leagues (NBA and NFL) that are much better off financially, not to mention way way more popular, already have some sort of cap in place. It boggles my mind how the NHLPA can have the arrogance to say that they will absolutely never accept a cap when two other much more popular and profitable leagues have already done so. I don`t want to hear about how the owners in those respective leagues broke the unions etc etc... The point is that the precedent is set in two of the other 4 major sports so I really don`t understand how the NHLPA will not accept any sort of cap.
It would be one thing if the owners were insisting on a cap with no precedent in North American professional sports, but here the "other" major league is refusing to accept what the two most popular major leagues have already have. I just don`t get it
The thing that I don`t understand with the CBA negotiations is how the NHLPA can absolutely and completely reject any type of cap or "cost certainty" as the owners put it. Who do they think they are? I mean here is a league that is barely even hanging on as being one of the four major league sports in North America and consistently has lower ratings than the likes of bowling and poker. Two of the other major leagues (NBA and NFL) that are much better off financially, not to mention way way more popular, already have some sort of cap in place. It boggles my mind how the NHLPA can have the arrogance to say that they will absolutely never accept a cap when two other much more popular and profitable leagues have already done so. I don`t want to hear about how the owners in those respective leagues broke the unions etc etc... The point is that the precedent is set in two of the other 4 major sports so I really don`t understand how the NHLPA will not accept any sort of cap.
It would be one thing if the owners were insisting on a cap with no precedent in North American professional sports, but here the "other" major league is refusing to accept what the two most popular major leagues have already have. I just don`t get it
The only other league with a hard cap is the NFL. The NFL has a cap for the opposite reason NHL owners want one. They have too much revenue. The NFL cap prevents hoarding of players, because every team has the resources to sign every free agent every year.
The NBA has a soft cap\luxury tax. MLB has a luxury tax.
What I am saying is that, considering that the NHL is way way behind these three sports in terms of popularity and revenue, how can they absolutely and completely reject a model that is not only used, but working in two other major league sports.
The NHLPA knows that to accept a cap will only cause problems for players down the road. The NFL cap was obtained in a situation where the union broke and the NFL revenue streams (namely from television) is a unique situation that essentially enables the NFL to dictate whatever it wants to the players. The NFL knows it doesn't need the players as much as the players need them.
The NBAPA accepted a salary cap basically after David Stern destroyed them in the eyes of the public and caused dissension among the players. Players were wondering why they weren't playing and why they would not just agree to some sort of cost structure. As a result, now the NBA has maximum salaries and a luxury tax system that has crippled many teams.
So...the NHLPA knows that cost certainty is what the owners want, and they also know that a salary cap will guarantee lower salaries for them. It's obvious that players would never agree to that. The fact that the NHL is in trouble in both finances and popularity is not sufficient reason for the players to automatically agree to a salary cap...they think a tax system is enough because they want to allow teams like the Red Wings and Rangers to keep on spending crazy money.
What I am saying is that, considering that the NHL is way way behind these three sports in terms of popularity and revenue, how can they absolutely and completely reject a model that is not only used, but working in two other major league sports.
The model the NHL wants is only used in the NFL. And I'm not having the NFL vs. NHL discussion again. And how does this proposed cap keep the big, bad, evil teams from giving out huge signing bonuses, which would worsen the current problems?
Until more info is available I am siding with the players for teh most part. The whole idea of a cap is predicated on the notion that Bettman keeps hounding: that 20 teams lost money, that the league is losing $200M+ a year, etc. But they will not release proof of that to the general public or anyone else. They're asking everyone to take their word for it, and that's BS.
They could very easily be doing some "creative accounting" to define what a loss is (and isn't), and they're not sharing that info. The only reason not to share it, is because people in the real accounting world will be able to see the accounting methods and comment publicly. Furthermor certain owners are running their clubs in a disgraceful way. I guarantee you Bill Wirtz (for example) is hoarding a lot of money in various ways, that he refuses to spend on hockey operations because he's a cheap priK.
It's to his advantage to demand a cap without any proof that he needs one.
Until more info is available I am siding with the players for teh most part. The whole idea of a cap is predicated on the notion that Bettman keeps hounding: that 20 teams lost money, that the league is losing $200M+ a year, etc. But they will not release proof of that to the general public or anyone else. They're asking everyone to take their word for it, and that's BS.
They could very easily be doing some "creative accounting" to define what a loss is (and isn't), and they're not sharing that info. The only reason not to share it, is because people in the real accounting world will be able to see the accounting methods and comment publicly. Furthermor certain owners are running their clubs in a disgraceful way. I guarantee you Bill Wirtz (for example) is hoarding a lot of money in various ways, that he refuses to spend on hockey operations because he's a cheap priK.
It's to his advantage to demand a cap without any proof that he needs one.
Go read the Levitt report. If the numbers the NHL is coming out with were so far from the truth the NHLPA would be all over it with a financial expert of their own. The fact that they haven`t shown any proof to the contrary and haven`t said anything since their three days of discussion on each team`s finances leads me to believe that the NHL`s numbers were pretty acurate.
The NHLPA knows that to accept a cap will only cause problems for players down the road. The NFL cap was obtained in a situation where the union broke and the NFL revenue streams (namely from television) is a unique situation that essentially enables the NFL to dictate whatever it wants to the players. The NFL knows it doesn't need the players as much as the players need them.
The NBAPA accepted a salary cap basically after David Stern destroyed them in the eyes of the public and caused dissension among the players. Players were wondering why they weren't playing and why they would not just agree to some sort of cost structure. As a result, now the NBA has maximum salaries and a luxury tax system that has crippled many teams.
So...the NHLPA knows that cost certainty is what the owners want, and they also know that a salary cap will guarantee lower salaries for them. It's obvious that players would never agree to that. The fact that the NHL is in trouble in both finances and popularity is not sufficient reason for the players to automatically agree to a salary cap...they think a tax system is enough because they want to allow teams like the Red Wings and Rangers to keep on spending crazy money.
If you read my original post you would have seen that I am not interested how the NFL and NBA put in place their sytems (frankly I don`t care), what I am saying is that the precedent is set. Not only is the precedent set, but it has been set by two much more popular and much more financially viable leagues who are thriving under their system.
If you read my original post you would have seen that I am not interested how the NFL and NBA put in place their sytems (frankly I don`t care), what I am saying is that the precedent is set. Not only is the precedent set, but it has been set by two much more popular and much more financially viable leagues who are thriving under their system.
And the biggest reason those league's are so well off financially is becuase of TV money. Each NFL team gets around $35 million per year from national TV. Each NHL team got $2 million a year under the last ABC deal, and they're not even gauranteed that under the new NBC deal.
I don't dobut the Levitt report says what the league says it does. the question is would another accountant find the same things. There's lots of ways to be creative, hide revenue, or take huge losses in one quarter or year instead of spreading them out over along period of time. the NHL needs to open thier books up to the public, team by team. They won't becuase they know other analysts will be able to make things look great for the players side. SOmeone even asked bettman today why the league doesn't do that, and he evaded the question.
Go read the Levitt report. If the numbers the NHL is coming out with were so far from the truth the NHLPA would be all over it with a financial expert of their own.
With no accounting or formal business training, I can concieve of a legal business that follows all proper accounting procedures, yet loses money on paper three years out of four and still grows as an asset. Do you think that the pros might be able to do a little more with their fancy training?
And the biggest reason those league's are so well off financially is becuase of TV money. Each NFL team gets around $35 million per year from national TV. Each NHL team got $2 million a year under the last ABC deal, and they're not even gauranteed that under the new NBC deal.
They get that money because of the popularity of the sport. The NHL is no where near as popular as the other major sports and NHL players cannot continue to be paid on par with the likes of football players, baseball players and basketball players.
Quote:
I don't dobut the Levitt report says what the league says it does. the question is would another accountant find the same things. There's lots of ways to be creative, hide revenue, or take huge losses in one quarter or year instead of spreading them out over along period of time. the NHL needs to open thier books up to the public, team by team. They won't becuase they know other analysts will be able to make things look great for the players side. SOmeone even asked bettman today why the league doesn't do that, and he evaded the question.
This was a INDEPENDANT report done by one of the most respected economists in the world. He was not being "creative" he wasn`t hiding revenue, this was a completely independant study in which Levitt had access to every aspect of every team`s financial records.
The NHL has repeatedly invited the NHLPA to look at the books and they have repeatedly declined. Let`s face it: if there was anything wrong with the LEvitt report the NHLPA would be all over it and trumpeting it to the media. They have said nothing of substance of it, that tells you something.
With no accounting or formal business training, I can concieve of a legal business that follows all proper accounting procedures, yet loses money on paper three years out of four and still grows as an asset. Do you think that the pros might be able to do a little more with their fancy training?
Don`t you think the NHLPA "pros" would have been able to point out any errors or misrepresentations in the report by now?
They get that money because of the popularity of the sport. The NHL is no where near as popular as the other major sports and NHL players cannot continue to be paid on par with the likes of football players, baseball players and basketball players.
This was a INDEPENDANT report done by one of the most respected economists in the world. He was not being "creative" he wasn`t hiding revenue, this was a completely independant study in which Levitt had access to every aspect of every team`s financial records.
The NHL has repeatedly invited the NHLPA to look at the books and they have repeatedly declined. Let`s face it: if there was anything wrong with the LEvitt report the NHLPA would be all over it and trumpeting it to the media. They have said nothing of substance of it, that tells you something.
I agree that NHL players should be paid less, but I diagree on how.
I'm not saying Levitt lied, or hid anything, but he couldn't count what wasn't there. Hell, there was a story someone here quoted last week where an unidentified league executive admitted they had 2 sets of books. If the NHL was so upfront and confident in their reporting, why won't they relase team by team reports?
Don`t you think the NHLPA "pros" would have been able to point out any errors or misrepresentations in the report by now?
No, because the report is based on information that is not publically available.
But that doesn't matter, because I'm certain that many teams the NHL can, in fact, legitimately generate paper losses while maintaining a viable business or business division.
In other words, the Levitt report could be a totally accurate and based on accounting that is 100% factual and still not provide a complete picture. It's a red herring.
What I am saying is that, considering that the NHL is way way behind these three sports in terms of popularity and revenue, how can they absolutely and completely reject a model that is not only used, but working in two other major league sports.
Its simple. Because the players stand to lose nearly 30% in salary. If what Bettman said was true of the owners proposition: that average salary would drop from 1.8M to 1.3M (under their proposal), obviously thats a lot of money the players are conceding.
How could any sane person be 'ok' with a large cut in salary? And obviously, looking at the salary structure and CBA's of other leagues (NFL, NBA) isn't going to make you feel any better. I believe the NFL and NHL are two different markets (salaries are not competing). Put yourself in the players shoes. If you took a 28% pay cut, would you be happy?
I think, eventually, the players and the owners need to meet half way. Its the only way they'll come to an agreement both can accept. What creative concessions each makes is probably the key.
How could any sane person be 'ok' with a large cut in salary? And obviously, looking at the salary structure and CBA's of other leagues (NFL, NBA) isn't going to make you feel any better. I believe the NFL and NHL are two different markets (salaries are not competing). Put yourself in the players shoes. If you took a 28% pay cut, would you be happy?
I don't think anyone will be happy with a 30% paycut, but right now they are looking at a 50% paycut if half the season is lost, and a 100% paycut if the entire season is lost, and even after that, when a new CBA is signed, they will lose some salary on top of that.
No, because the report is based on information that is not publically available.
But that doesn't matter, because I'm certain that many teams the NHL can, in fact, legitimately generate paper losses while maintaining a viable business or business division.
In other words, the Levitt report could be a totally accurate and based on accounting that is 100% factual and still not provide a complete picture. It's a red herring.
All I am saying is that the Levitt report is the only hard evidence we have of any kind on the financial state of the NHL and until any other credible person or organization comes up with information that proves otherwise that is the only thing we have to go on.
All I am saying is that the Levitt report is the only hard evidence we have of any kind on the financial state of the NHL and until any other credible person or organization comes up with information that proves otherwise that is the only thing we have to go on.
Nobody else can come up with anything because the NHL won't let them. Why is this so hard to grasp?
Nobody else can come up with anything because the NHL won't let them. Why is this so hard to grasp?
The NHL has openly offered to open up the books for the NHLPA and they have refused. They even have had Levitt himself open himself up to questions on his study to the NHLPA and again they have refused. Why would the NHLPA refuse to take a good look at the finances of the NHL and refuse to ask questions to Levitt on how exactly he came up with the results he did? Because if they did they would have to acknowledge publicly that the NHL`s numbers were correct and that would completely devestate their stand in these talks.
The NHL has openly offered to open up the books for the NHLPA and they have refused. They even have had Levitt himself open himself up to questions on his study to the NHLPA and again they have refused. Why would the NHLPA refuse to take a good look at the finances of the NHL and refuse to ask questions to Levitt on how exactly he came up with the results he did? Because if they did they would have to acknowledge publicly that the NHL`s numbers were correct and that would completely devestate their stand in these talks.
That's because the players have no interest in anything to do with finances. They just want to play hockey...
Of course it's easier for them to just say that anything the owners say is a lie, and that even if the owners did show the books, there are other books that the NHL is not showing. And the owners have planty of money from all their other enterprises, so it doesn't matter if they lose money on hockey teams. Did I leave anything out?
LIke ive said I will never agree with the players or take there side. THey want to make a decent living my god Brain McCabe should be shot on the spot that son of a *****. There a tons of poor people who slave to pay for his salary and hes driving a fancy car, wearing a fancy suit, having groupies screwing him, while little 15 year old alex his studying for finals and working 8 hour shifts and burger king so he can pay 150 bucks to watch a garbage player like McCabe.
THey want to make a decent living my god Brain McCabe should be shot on the spot that son of a *****.
Maybe if you didn't have such an irrational hatred for entertainers who can put 20,000 butts in seats a hundred nights a year, you'd be able to see the issues more clearly.
[QUOTE=Chelios]The thing that I don`t understand with the CBA negotiations is how the NHLPA can absolutely and completely reject any type of cap or "cost certainty" as the owners put it. Who do they think they are?
Guess you have never heard of this modern concept of collective bargaining ??? I know it is a new concept but to reach an agreement both side must agree what that contract will be. Understand!!!! Bargain reach an agreement problem solved . ope this clears up your confussion regarding his matter.
The thing that I don`t understand with the CBA negotiations is how the NHLPA can absolutely and completely reject any type of cap or "cost certainty" as the owners put it. Who do they think they are?
They think they are a union that was able to make the owners bend over and moan like whales a couple of times now.
