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
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

NHL's case

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-20-2004, 12:49 AM
  #1
me2
Callng out the crap
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Blasting the bull***
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 30,249
vCash: 93
NHL's case

http://www.nhlcbanews.com/cba_pres.ppt

That is their facts and figures. I'm still waiting for the NHLPA counter arguments. They should be interesting if they have any.

me2 is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 07:36 AM
  #2
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 129,295
vCash: 50
Yes, beleive everything the NHL feeds you

GKJ is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 07:41 AM
  #3
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,175
vCash: 500
It still boggles mymind that the NHLPA supporters still contest the numbers given by the NHL while the NHLPA has not released and different numbers, nor has it came out and said that the NHL is not giving them full access to their books (as every NHLPA supported seems to be sure of).

Chelios is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 07:46 AM
  #4
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,175
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
Yes, beleive everything the NHL feeds you
Perhaps we would believe everything the NHLPA feeds us if they had anything to feed

Chelios is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 08:09 AM
  #5
H/H
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 308
vCash: 500
I think it's funny when people on an internet board say they "support the owners" or "support the players", since neither party gives a flying **** about you.

H/H is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 08:28 AM
  #6
shadoz19
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by H/H
I think it's funny when people on an internet board say they "support the owners" or "support the players", since neither party gives a flying **** about you.
Well said.

shadoz19 is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 09:41 AM
  #7
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,175
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by H/H
I think it's funny when people on an internet board say they "support the owners" or "support the players", since neither party gives a flying **** about you.
I don`t support the Owners, I agree with them that something dramatic needs to be done. I don`t agree with the players that everything can be fine with a little tuning, I honestly believe that something drastic (like a salary cap) needs to be done to keep the NHL and its franchises financially sound. Do I want owners in Toronto, Colorado, Detroit etc to rake in more money? Hell no, but if thats what it takes to keep teams in Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa and Montreal then thats fine by me.

Chelios is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 09:54 AM
  #8
H/H
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 308
vCash: 500
I truly don't se ehow a salary cap would accomplish that. With a look at the NBA, nobody is making any less money.

H/H is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 10:16 AM
  #9
ExplosiveLEAFman
Registered User
 
ExplosiveLEAFman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,661
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by H/H
I think it's funny when people on an internet board say they "support the owners" or "support the players", since neither party gives a flying **** about you.
I think it's funny when fans complain about owners or players not caring about them when fans usually don't care about the owners or the players.

ExplosiveLEAFman is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 12:08 PM
  #10
West
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
http://www.nhlcbanews.com/cba_pres.ppt

That is their facts and figures. I'm still waiting for the NHLPA counter arguments. They should be interesting if they have any.
After looking over the report I have a few things that I'd put favorably towards the player's in a negotiation...

1) Last I heard (and I could be away out of date) the NHL was asking for a $31 million salary cap.

After getting the numbers from this report it looks to me like most other pro sports leagues pay between 55-65% of gross revenues to the players. This would put the salary cap at about 34-40 million per team.

2) Let's say I split the difference and have a hard cap at $37 million...

but 55% of the top third of teams revenues is about $46 million. So the rich teams are going to pocket an extra 9 million average (this is above what was considered fair market % in statement 1).

Your middle third would be ok with 65% of their total revenue just below $37 million.

Even at 65% bottom third would only be able to muster of about $29 million.

This means that a hard cap would cut the players out of about $170 million more than what's most people would considerable a reasonable percentage.

3) Brian Burke voiced an opinion that teams should pool and split evenly 1/3 of all revenues across the board (he also stated that this is much more than anyone of the owners is really interested in doing).

This would break down to about...

top third -7.5 million
middel third +1.5 million
bottom third +5.5 million

and even if all that money went into player salary it wouldn't make up for the differences mentioned in point 2 (you'd need about 45% revenue sharing to do that).

Basically I figure the real answer to this will be an unprecedent profit sharing or folding frachise or a combination of both.

As a fan what I'd like to see as a fan is reveune sharing at about 40% and whatever you loss in the revenue sharing is added to your salary cap. Also I wouldn't cry if a few teams got bought out and shut down(only American teams of course).

West is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 06:30 PM
  #11
me2
Callng out the crap
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Blasting the bull***
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 30,249
vCash: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
Yes, beleive everything the NHL feeds you
I'm still waiting for some quality counter arguments from the NHLPA so I can compare views.

waiting..waiting..waiting..

I wonder how long I'll have to wait.

me2 is offline  
Old
09-20-2004, 06:43 PM
  #12
me2
Callng out the crap
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Blasting the bull***
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 30,249
vCash: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by West
After looking over the report I have a few things that I'd put favorably towards the player's in a negotiation...

1) Last I heard (and I could be away out of date) the NHL was asking for a $31 million salary cap.
"Deal with us reasonably or you get a $31m cap"

The NHL won't move from the $31m number and there is no reason for them to move from $31m unless the NHLPA comes up with an acceptable CBA offer. Any increase on the $31m will weaken their bagaining position at the impasse and won't be accepted by the NHLPA anyway.



I doubt the $31m hard cap if the NHLs best offer, but you won't see better until the NHLPA is serious about compromise. We could see a situation like this: no season - impasse - strike - scab labour - compromise of a $40m hard cap. Goodenow gets a $9m "win" for the players, while the owners get the cap they were happy with all along. If they were to offer $37m now the union would probably win a compromise of $45m.

If they were to offer $45m hard cap now the NHLPA would say no, and then the NHLs position is greatly weakended. If they make a better offer the NHLPA will use that at the impasse. While they stay at $31m they can hold that as a hammer over the NHLPA.

me2 is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 02:02 AM
  #13
H/H
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 308
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by explosivethinman
I think it's funny when fans complain about owners or players not caring about them when fans usually don't care about the owners or the players.
WOW! YOU REALLY GOT ME THERE!!!!!

H/H is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 08:31 AM
  #14
Bruwinz37
Registered User
 
Bruwinz37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 27,410
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by H/H
I think it's funny when people on an internet board say they "support the owners" or "support the players", since neither party gives a flying **** about you.
Well speaking from myself I am not a sensitive little baby and I could care less if they give care about me. I support the owners because, imo, there CBA is best long term for this league. That is why I support them.

Maybe you should think about why people support one position or another before you enlighten us with further sermons.

Bruwinz37 is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 12:15 PM
  #15
West
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
"Deal with us reasonably or you get a $31m cap"

The NHL won't move from the $31m number and there is no reason for them to move from $31m unless the NHLPA comes up with an acceptable CBA offer. Any increase on the $31m will weaken their bagaining position at the impasse and won't be accepted by the NHLPA anyway.
Although I beleive that the owners should likely be making more money and that yes a new CBA is needed. I don't think that the owners have made anything close to a resonable offer yet (neither has the NHLPA). But according to your logic both sides are equeal justified in not moving from there positions.

I was trying to make the point that any sort of cap would either be
a) Way to high for the poor teams to be significant.
b) Be so low as to cut the players out of way more cash than players in other leagues.

After looking at the numbers I'd say that you'd have to equalize the revenues between the strong and weak teams in order to impose any sort of salary cap that is going to be fair and effective. To my understanding this is very similar to baseball and I believe that their CBA has 1/3 revenue sharing between all teams written into it.

Personnally I'd say that the NHL is going to need to share at least a third of revenues before any real salary cap can be negotiated.

Also to me it would seem to be a great place to start negotiating because teams sharing money amoung teams probably isn't an issue that most players would have a strong feelings about. From there you start talking about what consititues revenues which would lead to what percentage to players should expect to salary cap.

What I see as the real sticking point myself is that most teams have no interest in profit sharing to that extent so the NHL has to go for a salary cap that all teams can afford. The players would rather flush a few of the weaker revenue teams and maintain a higher average salary and higher percentage of total earnings.

Me I plan on watching alot more CHL and AHL hockey this year.

West is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 01:24 PM
  #16
Tom_Benjamin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by West
What I see as the real sticking point myself is that most teams have no interest in profit sharing to that extent so the NHL has to go for a salary cap that all teams can afford. The players would rather flush a few of the weaker revenue teams and maintain a higher average salary and higher percentage of total earnings.
A salary cap is not necessary if revenues are equal. Isn't that supposed to be the big problem? Some teams - winners and the Rangers - have much more money than the losers. Therefore they can afford to spend much more on players.

If everyone had the same revenues, nobody would be able to afford more. This would be very easy to do. Make 100% of playoff revenues league revenues and divide them 30 ways.

Tom

Tom_Benjamin is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 02:01 PM
  #17
West
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
A salary cap is not necessary if revenues are equal. Isn't that supposed to be the big problem? Some teams - winners and the Rangers - have much more money than the losers. Therefore they can afford to spend much more on players.

If everyone had the same revenues, nobody would be able to afford more. This would be very easy to do. Make 100% of playoff revenues league revenues and divide them 30 ways.
Tom
If you take a look at NA leagues the leagues where everyone has similar revenues also have the most restrictive salary caps. This is to keep 3/4 of the league overspending to make that long and lucrative play-off run that is going to make them a ton of money that only a few teams can acheive by definition.

Also from the NHL document team revenues vary from about $85 to $45 million which is the average from the top and bottom ten teams in revenue respectively.

I can't say how revenue is generated by the play-offs but my guess is not nearly enough to do what your talking about.

West is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 05:41 PM
  #18
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,540
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
Make 100% of playoff revenues league revenues and divide them 30 ways.

Tom
It does seem like revenue sharing pot of gold Hockey obviously has at its disposal. With prices hiked 200-400% in the playoffs, and the doubled tv interest, I'd guess its about half the yearly revenue.

But Im not sure id trust owners to make the best hockey decisions to lead us to a cup, if they have no financial incentive to. It wouldnt be in their best interests.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 05:47 PM
  #19
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by West
If you take a look at NA leagues the leagues where everyone has similar revenues also have the most restrictive salary caps. This is to keep 3/4 of the league overspending to make that long and lucrative play-off run that is going to make them a ton of money that only a few teams can acheive by definition.

Also from the NHL document team revenues vary from about $85 to $45 million which is the average from the top and bottom ten teams in revenue respectively.

I can't say how revenue is generated by the play-offs but my guess is not nearly enough to do what your talking about.
Instead of just playof revenue, why not split all revenue 30 ways? If the league took in about $2.1 billion last year, that means $70 million per team. There's not a team in the league that can't compete every year with that kind of revenue. But the owners would never go for it.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 08:12 PM
  #20
me2
Callng out the crap
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Blasting the bull***
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 30,249
vCash: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by West
Although I beleive that the owners should likely be making more money and that yes a new CBA is needed. I don't think that the owners have made anything close to a resonable offer yet (neither has the NHLPA). But according to your logic both sides are equeal justified in not moving from there positions.

I was trying to make the point that any sort of cap would either be
a) Way to high for the poor teams to be significant.
b) Be so low as to cut the players out of way more cash than players in other leagues.

After looking at the numbers I'd say that you'd have to equalize the revenues between the strong and weak teams in order to impose any sort of salary cap that is going to be fair and effective. To my understanding this is very similar to baseball and I believe that their CBA has 1/3 revenue sharing between all teams written into it.
I think the owners $31m is a front. Its a dream situation for Bettman, and its a base point for scaring the NHLPA. Bettman has more to lose by trying to find a compromise than the union does. Whatever Bettman offers will be used against him at the impasse. The more he offers before the impasse the less he has to bargain with. From the impasse on the NHLPA will start taking things seriously, and Bettman can use the $31m as a hammer to force the union to sign a reasonable CBA. The pressure to sign a dea after the impasse will be immense and both sides will compromise. If after the impasse rolls around and the NHL's best offer is $31m then Goodenow can sell the $40m +$1 for $1 luxury tax offer to the players as a "win". The NHLPA would reject a $40m +$1 for $1 luxury tax offer right now, use it at the impasse to hold out for another $5-10m.

The ball is in the players court, they are free to make as many CBA offers as they like and it won't be used against them. If they present one the NHL likes we have season. I don't expect any serious CBA offers from the NHLPA, they expect the owners to cave in, either that or they just don't care and are being stubborn to make a point.


Last edited by me2: 09-21-2004 at 08:16 PM.
me2 is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 08:18 PM
  #21
me2
Callng out the crap
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Blasting the bull***
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 30,249
vCash: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Instead of just playof revenue, why not split all revenue 30 ways? If the league took in about $2.1 billion last year, that means $70 million per team. There's not a team in the league that can't compete every year with that kind of revenue. But the owners would never go for it.

The weaker owners would. Would Detroit fans be happy to give up the chance for their owner to buy a better team or maintain the core during cup runs?

me2 is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 08:25 PM
  #22
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2
The weaker owners would. Would Detroit fans be happy to give up the chance for their owner to buy a better team or maintain the core during cup runs?
Well, he never bought a cup to begin with, but thanks for your expert knowledge on the situation.

Since their payroll isn't going be anywhere near $70 million again, I'd say its enough to sustain a good team. And if he wants to go higher, he can.

Would that revenue sharing not provide the most equal playing field? Maybe this is something the owners could look into to if they weren't so hell bent on detroying the game.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 08:46 PM
  #23
mr gib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios
I don`t support the Owners, I agree with them that something dramatic needs to be done. I don`t agree with the players that everything can be fine with a little tuning, I honestly believe that something drastic (like a salary cap) needs to be done to keep the NHL and its franchises financially sound. Do I want owners in Toronto, Colorado, Detroit etc to rake in more money? Hell no, but if thats what it takes to keep teams in Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa and Montreal then thats fine by me.
yes but they - the owners - don't want a luxury tax or revenue sharing -

philly, the leafs , red wings , colorado , rangers , dallas , canucks , etc - don't want to give up profits to the one's losing money - a system is needed - no trust on both sides

mr gib is offline  
Old
09-21-2004, 08:50 PM
  #24
mr gib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios
It still boggles mymind that the NHLPA supporters still contest the numbers given by the NHL while the NHLPA has not released and different numbers, nor has it came out and said that the NHL is not giving them full access to their books (as every NHLPA supported seems to be sure of).
canucks made 45 million in two years - how much do you think the leafs and flyers made? -

the games are on their own networks -

mr gib is offline  
Old
09-22-2004, 01:21 AM
  #25
me2
Callng out the crap
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Blasting the bull***
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 30,249
vCash: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Well, he never bought a cup to begin with, but thanks for your expert knowledge on the situation.

Since their payroll isn't going be anywhere near $70 million again, I'd say its enough to sustain a good team. And if he wants to go higher, he can.

Would that revenue sharing not provide the most equal playing field? Maybe this is something the owners could look into to if they weren't so hell bent on detroying the game.
Detroits 1990s core is burnt out. They built it the right way originally but have been propping it up for years. While there is some new talent coming through (Zetts, Dats,Fisch) its not enough to maintain the teams chances. Holland believes it needs outside help.

Here is a list off the top of my head of players that Detroit has signed/played as UFAs and/or older players picked up from other teams as salary dumps (using Detroits fiscal advantage to gain players).

Hasek, Joseph, Hull, Schneider, Hatcher, Lucky Luc Robitaille, Chelios, Lang, Whitney, Thomas, Wooley, Krupp, Duchesne, Olausson.

That's not including siging their own old core UFAs to very generous terms weaker teams couldn't match. Something Detroit doesn't have to worry about and fiscally responsible teams do.

me2 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 08:49 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.