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
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.

Total gate revenues - You'd be surprised

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-30-2004, 04:17 PM
  #51
jeffbear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,195
vCash: 500
In Carolina's case, those numbers are deceiving because they only account for conventional ticket sales. The Hurricanes' arena has 62 luxury suites, of which 58 are sold to non-Hurricane related interests. Those suites go for $100,000 per season, and the Canes keep approximately 2/3 of that revenue. In addition the Hurricanes keep a higher percentage of parking, signage and concession revenues than the average NHL team per the terms of their lease agreement ... and they receive some income from NC State University basketball games in their arena ... and number that is not public. In addition they receive a portion of the naming rihts payments on the arena ... like about $1,000,000 IIRC.

Thus the problem with proving what the revenue situation is for NHL teams ... it's never a clean sheet.

jeffbear is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 04:33 PM
  #52
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedgreen
im a canes fan, and im against a hard cap. its not about a level playing field - its about the canes making 15 million a season. how is that number going to go up to cover the players costs? a cap isnt going help them in my opinion - a luxury tax would at least give them money to even out the disparity. if a team cant make enough money to cover 31 mill, why are they arguing they want a hard cap of 31mill? im not with the players but there is no way the owners are giving out all the numbers - cuz carolina wouldnt be such hard line cap people if the team wasnt able to cover the cost of the cap.
wow, a small market fan that isn't a dolt. it is possble. I wish more people could realize the league's main problem is lack of revenue, and that a salary cap does nothing to help.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 07:11 PM
  #53
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 17,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Ilitch can't quote directly becuase of the threat of a $1 million fine, but here's a couple articles for you to read:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/s...9684144.htm?1c

http://www.detnews.com/2004/wings/04...d06-284751.htm

Ilitch wasn't popular with Tiger fans because the team was horrid. Its a big misconception he didn't spend money on them. Until about 2 years ago, their payroll was roughly the same as the Red Wings. He had bad management in place, and that management spent his money unwisely. They were paying Damion Easley $12 million a year. A couple years ago they hired Dave Dombroski, who is competent, and they've improved. Its not George Steinbrenner's fault the Tiger's were paying Damion Easley $12 million a year.

You're also not realizing that while Detroit may have lost money the last two years, they made alot in 2002. And again, they know the possible consequences of having a high payroll.
And I can write an article that says I think Ilitch is in favor of a cap. Those are just opinions of writers not facts.

triggrman is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 07:12 PM
  #54
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 17,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
wow, a small market fan that isn't a dolt. it is possble. I wish more people could realize the league's main problem is lack of revenue, and that a salary cap does nothing to help.
So we're dolts because we don't agree with you or the NHLPA. Sorry but 80% of hockey fans are siding with the owners. The other 19% are hard headed big market fans.

triggrman is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 07:35 PM
  #55
quat
winsome, loathsome
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 9,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife
"As a wage earner it's my right to prostitute myself for as much as I can get - no ceiling."

Ted Lindsay

Players can act and be as ignorant as they wish... and they are proving they are willing to do so. They are making a stand on an incredibly stupid point. 60 years or so ago when Ted made that comment, he made a whole lot of sense. Using it under the present circumstances makes him look like a clown. Assuming Lindsey would put up with the kind of petulant whining that these multi-millionaire players are spouting is a huge stretch IMO.

It's kind of pathetic that you are using what players like Lindsay had to put up with to prove that todays players are justified in their actions.

quat is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 07:40 PM
  #56
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by triggrman
So we're dolts because we don't agree with you or the NHLPA. Sorry but 80% of hockey fans are siding with the owners. The other 19% are hard headed big market fans.
No, you're dolts for many other reasons:

1. You beleive the owners have a noble reason for this lockout when in fact they are doing it simply out of greed.

2. You beleive this supposed competitive balance will draw more fans to hockey. Look to the Arena Football League for guidance on this. AFl is a lot closer to the NHL in terms of revenue than the NFL.

3. You beleive teams can still build dynasties under a cap. Look to the NFL for guidance on this.

4. You beleive the players want to keep the status quo, when in fact their starting proposal isn't anything close to the current system.

5. You beleive a cap would be a magic elixer for all the teams that can't compete. For this one, take a look at the Detroit Lions. They averaged 6.3 wins per year in the 10 years before the cap, and 6.5 in the 10 years after.

Finally, if 80% agree with the NHL and 19% agree with the players, where is the other 1%? Are they Ralph Nader?

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 08:39 PM
  #57
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 17,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
No, you're dolts for many other reasons:

1. You beleive the owners have a noble reason for this lockout when in fact they are doing it simply out of greed.
No, they're just tired of losing money. Even the NHLPA agrees they are losing money, how much can be argued.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
2. You beleive this supposed competitive balance will draw more fans to hockey. Look to the Arena Football League for guidance on this. AFl is a lot closer to the NHL in terms of revenue than the NFL.
AFL gets better ratings than the NHL, and is really do quite well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
3. You beleive teams can still build dynasties under a cap. Look to the NFL for guidance on this.
I don't believe dynasties are some great thing leagues need to have. Look to the NFL for guidance for this. You don't need dynasties, parity sales more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
4. You beleive the players want to keep the status quo, when in fact their starting proposal isn't anything close to the current system.
a salary cap at 50M with very little punishment for exceeding the cap doesn't do much different than the current system. The NHLPA said 15 teams would still lose money with this system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
5. You beleive a cap would be a magic elixer for all the teams that can't compete. For this one, take a look at the Detroit Lions. They averaged 6.3 wins per year in the 10 years before the cap, and 6.5 in the 10 years after.
The Lions are the exception to the rule. See the Saints, the Bucs, the Jags, the Titans, the Rams, for further proof. I think as a RedWing fan you probably look more to the Cowboys and the 49ers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Finally, if 80% agree with the NHL and 19% agree with the players, where is the other 1%? Are they Ralph Nader?
No they're Canes fans in Colorado

triggrman is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 08:57 PM
  #58
DownFromNJ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,536
vCash: 500
Quote:
2. You beleive this supposed competitive balance will draw more fans to hockey. Look to the Arena Football League for guidance on this. AFl is a lot closer to the NHL in terms of revenue than the NFL

The AFL does not make anywhere close to 2.1 billion dollars. I'd be surprised if they made over 1 billion.

DownFromNJ is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 09:04 PM
  #59
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 10,816
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by triggrman
No they're Canes fans in Colorado
whoa. what did i do?

sorry, its true. i live in colorado. i root for the canes. im from hartford and never let it go. a hard cap is something i have always been against - even if the whale was still around. i just think that a strong luxury tax does more for the health of the lower end teams than a hard cap will. let the rangers, wings, and leafs spend 10 million on guys - if a cut of it goes to the canes and they can keep eric staal because of it, sweet. i think that davey beating goliath is what sports is all about - i want the evil big money teams to be around so i can be that much more pumped when my team beats them. ive always been a small market guy, i dont want to be the same as the rangers.

bleedgreen is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 09:29 PM
  #60
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
No, you're dolts for many other reasons:

1. You beleive the owners have a noble reason for this lockout when in fact they are doing it simply out of greed.
This has to be one of the doltiest things posted. They are doing it simply out of greed? Do you really believe that? Nothing more than straight up greed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
2. You beleive this supposed competitive balance will draw more fans to hockey. Look to the Arena Football League for guidance on this. AFl is a lot closer to the NHL in terms of revenue than the NFL.
The only thing that will draw more fans is opening up the game. This has nothing to do with the CBA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
3. You beleive teams can still build dynasties under a cap. Look to the NFL for guidance on this.
Dynastys are a thing of the past anyways. When was the last true dynasty? Pens? It seems dynastys were around more, before the salaries got all stupid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
4. You beleive the players want to keep the status quo, when in fact their starting proposal isn't anything close to the current system.
But from the owners point of view, the status quo is a system that causes them to lose money. If you change the system and the result is the same, is that not the status quo? From the owners point of view, yes. From the player POV, no. Its just some stupid word that is being thrown around to sway the uninformed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
5. You beleive a cap would be a magic elixer for all the teams that can't compete. For this one, take a look at the Detroit Lions. They averaged 6.3 wins per year in the 10 years before the cap, and 6.5 in the 10 years after.
So does that mean that a cap wouldnt change the competitive balance? Youre one example seems to show that. It seems that with a cap, the teams will still play about the same but there would be better financial stability in the league.

Yes, I'm being facitous, but hey, mabye a cap would help dyanstys. Mabye, since players would know they can only make ridiculus money on a ****** team with cap room, they will stay with their dynasty team for less money, just so they can win. I know if I was making 3 million, and they could only offer me 2.5 because of cap room, I'd stay if I loved the team and we were the team everyone feared, and I loved the city and had my family there etc etc.

Or mabye every team should put 1 million dollars in a pool at the beginning of the season, and the winning team gets 30 mil to spead around. If the superstar took a 2 million dolar pay cut to stay on his team, then he could get it back if they win it all.

But to be honest, I dont think a cap is the answer, but its a better starting place than the PA's offer. I think the owners have to realize that the player WONT accept a cap. They said so themselves. Theyre not going to go back on that.

And I think the PA has to make an offer that is actually not a token concession. They have to acknoledge the problems in the league, and address them. For real this time. They have been taking full advantage of the CBA for the last 10 years and the owners want a deal that will not enable this to happen anymore at the owners expense.

This league cant function if one of the sides is hurting financially, be it players having their pensions stolen by Eagleson, or some owners not being able to keep up with a league that thinks it's bigger than it actually is.


Last edited by Cawz: 09-30-2004 at 09:33 PM.
Cawz is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 09:30 PM
  #61
impudent_lowlife
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quat
Players can act and be as ignorant as they wish... and they are proving they are willing to do so. They are making a stand on an incredibly stupid point. 60 years or so ago when Ted made that comment, he made a whole lot of sense. Using it under the present circumstances makes him look like a clown. Assuming Lindsey would put up with the kind of petulant whining that these multi-millionaire players are spouting is a huge stretch IMO.

It's kind of pathetic that you are using what players like Lindsay had to put up with to prove that todays players are justified in their actions.
Calling someone pathetic for a differing opinion isn't very mature, eh? This isn't a player strike - it's an owner lockout - they are different. Back in Lindsay's day the owners whined of poverty - not much has changed, eh?

Salary cap? Don't like it because owners being human and competive will probably spend more time flouting and ignoring the rules of the cap rather than adhering to them - just like in the NBA and their back-loaded contracts. So if the elite NHL clubs use their ample resources to back-load contracts while the bottom feeders (who don't have the resources) don't then how does that solve anything? Now a luxury tax that hurts a team's profit margin (if they overspend on salaries) would solve that problem - in tandem with revenue sharing. You're still going to have elite clubs and bottom feeders but the gap between them will be less, IMO.

impudent_lowlife is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 10:22 PM
  #62
quat
winsome, loathsome
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 9,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
No, you're dolts for many other reasons:

1. You beleive the owners have a noble reason for this lockout when in fact they are doing it simply out of greed.

I support the owners in this case regardless of their motives. They happen to be correct which does not make them more moral than the players.

2. You beleive this supposed competitive balance will draw more fans to hockey. Look to the Arena Football League for guidance on this. AFl is a lot closer to the NHL in terms of revenue than the NFL.

It stands a better chance of drawing more fans than the present agreement. There is no guarantee that hockey will ever be hugely popular in the US. But doesn't your statement make more of a case for cost certainty?

3. You beleive teams can still build dynasties under a cap. Look to the NFL for guidance on this.

The Habs, the Islanders and the Oilers all built dyanasties when teams basically spent the same. Where is your proof they can't. Football? lol.

4. You beleive the players want to keep the status quo, when in fact their starting proposal isn't anything close to the current system.

Well, no talking to you on this one.

5. You beleive a cap would be a magic elixer for all the teams that can't compete. For this one, take a look at the Detroit Lions. They averaged 6.3 wins per year in the 10 years before the cap, and 6.5 in the 10 years after.

No smart guy. There is no magic elixer and as usual you make up a dumb statment and then attribute it to people who disagree with you. Some posters here think that a cap will help even the playing field, thus giving teams that are drawing fewer fans the chance to build winners that will attract attention. Again, no promise, but better than what the NHLPA is offering.

Finally, if 80% agree with the NHL and 19% agree with the players, where is the other 1%? Are they Ralph Nader?
? I see, you must feel whatever pole you are quoting is invalid because 1% of voters are missing. Again I will say most posters are supporting the Owners because the reality is the players at this point and time are not helping the league and the Fans and the game.... not because they admire rich business men. Why you have difficulty understanding that remains to be seen.


Last edited by quat: 10-01-2004 at 02:15 AM.
quat is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 10:26 PM
  #63
quat
winsome, loathsome
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 9,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife
Calling someone pathetic for a differing opinion isn't very mature, eh? This isn't a player strike - it's an owner lockout - they are different. Back in Lindsay's day the owners whined of poverty - not much has changed, eh?

Salary cap? Don't like it because owners being human and competive will probably spend more time flouting and ignoring the rules of the cap rather than adhering to them - just like in the NBA and their back-loaded contracts. So if the elite NHL clubs use their ample resources to back-load contracts while the bottom feeders (who don't have the resources) don't then how does that solve anything? Now a luxury tax that hurts a team's profit margin (if they overspend on salaries) would solve that problem - in tandem with revenue sharing. You're still going to have elite clubs and bottom feeders but the gap between them will be less, IMO.
Perhaps you should think a little more about what quotes you use before posting. If you understood a fraction of what players of that day and age went through, you wouldn't so liberaly use them. Many of those players were poor and only played the game because they loved it. The juxtaposition with todays players is extremely gross.

quat is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 10:48 PM
  #64
impudent_lowlife
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quat
Perhaps you should think a little more about what quotes you use before posting. If you understood a fraction of what players of that day and age went through, you wouldn't so liberaly use them. Many of those players were poor and only played the game because they loved it. The juxtaposition with todays players is extremely gross.
Perhaps if you understood league history, what Lindsay started, what Eagleson bastardized you might not be such an owner cheerleader. The players have a little power, a little pull for 15 of the 90 years that the NHL has been in existance and owners and their legions of indoctrinated peons cry out that the sky is falling.

impudent_lowlife is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 11:22 PM
  #65
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,359
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife
Perhaps if you understood league history, what Lindsay started, what Eagleson bastardized you might not be such an owner cheerleader. The players have a little power, a little pull for 15 of the 90 years that the NHL has been in existance and owners and their legions of indoctrinated peons cry out that the sky is falling.
"a little"

For 80 years the owners ruled. The pendulum swung the other way in the 90s and the players ruled. If the owners rule for 80 years the NHL survives. If the players try and rule for 80 years the league folds. Simple as that. The pendulum needs to be set in the middle, on the owners or players sides, but right now the players won't give it up.

me2 is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 11:32 PM
  #66
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 hockeytown9321
No, you're dolts for many other reasons:

1. You beleive the owners have a noble reason for this lockout when in fact they are doing it simply out of greed.

when many owners could just as easy give their GM's a budget that's less than what their current budgets are so the owners could keep more money... yep, those greedy owners

2. You beleive this supposed competitive balance will draw more fans to hockey. Look to the Arena Football League for guidance on this. AFl is a lot closer to the NHL in terms of revenue than the NFL.

who cares about the AFL, two different sports and you could argue just as easily that more ppl in the US have been playing football longer than hockey, so IMO this is invalid as well

3. You beleive teams can still build dynasties under a cap. Look to the NFL for guidance on this.

IMO it's possible, you can't disallow for something just because in another sport it's harder or impossible to do, in most other sports team loyalty isn't as strong as it is in hockey, where some players actually stay with the same team throughout their careers

4. You beleive the players want to keep the status quo, when in fact their starting proposal isn't anything close to the current system.

as has been said before, their proposal barely scratches the surface and doesn't do anything in regards to every year besides the 1st year of their proposal

5. You beleive a cap would be a magic elixer for all the teams that can't compete. For this one, take a look at the Detroit Lions. They averaged 6.3 wins per year in the 10 years before the cap, and 6.5 in the 10 years after.

i don't believe anyone ever said a cap was a magic elixir of any kind, bottom line, a cap will eliminate roughly 90 % of the overspending that a few of the GM's have done to create the mess the league is in today.. would go on but this topic has been discussed and rediscussed and on and on... i'd like to see those kind of stats with a league that plays more than 16 games a season

Finally, if 80% agree with the NHL and 19% agree with the players, where is the other 1%? Are they Ralph Nader?

does it matter what the other 1% are... it either closes the gap or it widens it, it's not like the pro owner and pro union sides are on equal ground like 50/49... then the 1% would mean something
stick to calling people dolts that deserve to be called dolts, not just those who have a differing opinion than yours

garry1221 is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 02:14 AM
  #67
quat
winsome, loathsome
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 9,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife
Perhaps if you understood league history, what Lindsay started, what Eagleson bastardized you might not be such an owner cheerleader. The players have a little power, a little pull for 15 of the 90 years that the NHL has been in existance and owners and their legions of indoctrinated peons cry out that the sky is falling.
First, I called your choice of quotes "rather pathetic", not you as a person. For all I know you embody the term kind and conciderate. Getting your nose out of joint about that when other posters here are calling people who disagree with their opinion dolts seems a little much.

I'm not certain to what degree you are aware of the terms you are using. Calling someone a cheerleader for owners because they see a league in financial chaos and feel the only way it can get the thing organized and functioning properly is with some kind of fiscal (financial),restraint (such as tying salarys to revenue, or some kind of cap), is dumb. I don't feel this problem was created by the players, but I'm intelligent enough to realize that they are going to have to be a big part of the solution.

I'm actually quite aware of the players struggle with NHL. Your first comment using Terrible Ted as an appologist for todays millionaire players is a laugh (or pathetic... you can choose).... or it's a clear sign you don't know the difference between these two situtations. Sorry, but acting as if I don't know a brief history of the NHL doesn't dig you out of that hole.

What is very clear is that instead of looking at the reality of the problems facing the NHL today, you would rather just support the players because they were the losing side of a battle for the better part of 90 years. I'm sorry, but that's emotional foolishness. So what? You want the NHLPA to kick the crap out of the owners for another 30 years or so until which time you think it's even? I hope that's not what you're thinking, because it's clear the owners aren't willing to back down on this, and they actually shouldn't for whats best for hockey.

The individual owners and their lot in life ultimately don't mean all that much to me, but the quality of hockey and the players on the team I support do. I support what the owners are doing, not because of some kiddy popularity contest.


Last edited by quat: 10-01-2004 at 02:19 AM.
quat is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 11:00 AM
  #68
impudent_lowlife
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quat
First, I called your choice of quotes "rather pathetic", not you as a person. For all I know you embody the term kind and conciderate. Getting your nose out of joint about that when other posters here are calling people who disagree with their opinion dolts seems a little much.
I'm a sensitive guy

Quote:
I'm not certain to what degree you are aware of the terms you are using. Calling someone a cheerleader for owners because they see a league in financial chaos and feel the only way it can get the thing organized and functioning properly is with some kind of fiscal (financial),restraint (such as tying salarys to revenue, or some kind of cap), is dumb. I don't feel this problem was created by the players, but I'm intelligent enough to realize that they are going to have to be a big part of the solution.
you've disregarded an entire post of mine: Salary cap? Don't like it because owners being human and competive will probably spend more time flouting and ignoring the rules of the cap rather than adhering to them - just like in the NBA and their back-loaded contracts. So if the elite NHL clubs use their ample resources to back-load contracts while the bottom feeders (who don't have the resources) don't then how does that solve anything? Now a luxury tax that hurts a team's profit margin (if they overspend on salaries) would solve that problem - in tandem with revenue sharing. You're still going to have elite clubs and bottom feeders but the gap between them will be less, IMO.

Quote:
I'm actually quite aware of the players struggle with NHL. Your first comment using Terrible Ted as an appologist for todays millionaire players is a laugh (or pathetic... you can choose).... or it's a clear sign you don't know the difference between these two situtations. Sorry, but acting as if I don't know a brief history of the NHL doesn't dig you out of that hole.
No need to apologize but... the owners' stance of "my way or the highway" concerning a cap while claiming dire poverty is remeniscent of the old days.

Quote:
What is very clear is that instead of looking at the reality of the problems facing the NHL today, you would rather just support the players because they were the losing side of a battle for the better part of 90 years. I'm sorry, but that's emotional foolishness. So what? You want the NHLPA to kick the crap out of the owners for another 30 years or so until which time you think it's even? I hope that's not what you're thinking, because it's clear the owners aren't willing to back down on this, and they actually shouldn't for whats best for hockey.
Putting words in my mouth is emotional foolishness. See my comments above on the cap to see how I feel about it. Owners can (and will) circumvent caps. They can't circumvent a substantial tax on payroll - and the players are smart enough to recognize this.

impudent_lowlife is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 11:05 AM
  #69
Biggest Canuck Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Kelowna, BC
Posts: 10,452
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Biggest Canuck Fan
The problem with these numbers is that they do not take into account the 150K + multiplied by the # of luxury boxes.

I know most boxes in Vancouver hold about 16 people. And there are about 40.

Biggest Canuck Fan is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 11:21 AM
  #70
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownFromNJ
The AFL does not make anywhere close to 2.1 billion dollars. I'd be surprised if they made over 1 billion.
What I said is that AFL revenues are alot closer to NHL revenues than NFL revenues are. And that the AFL, through a cap, has not generated a lot of interest from casual fans, and teams fold all the time. The potential revenues of a league have more to do with its popularity than its competitive balance. the NHL will never be popular in about half the cities its in now, and a cap won't change that.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 12:00 PM
  #71
impudent_lowlife
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggest Canuck Fan
The problem with these numbers is that they do not take into account the 150K + multiplied by the # of luxury boxes.

I know most boxes in Vancouver hold about 16 people. And there are about 40.
Supposedly, for the purposes of the NHL's URO, franchises can allocate any ticket value they want to luxury seats. Under-report the revenue and you skew the player cost ratio in your favour.

impudent_lowlife is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 04:33 PM
  #72
Biggest Canuck Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Kelowna, BC
Posts: 10,452
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Biggest Canuck Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife
Supposedly, for the purposes of the NHL's URO, franchises can allocate any ticket value they want to luxury seats. Under-report the revenue and you skew the player cost ratio in your favour.
If that is true, then my support for the Players just jumped 10 fold.

Bottom line, lying to get your way only infuriates the fans that pay these things.

Biggest Canuck Fan is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 07:37 PM
  #73
quat
winsome, loathsome
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 9,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife

No need to apologize but... the owners' stance of "my way or the highway" concerning a cap while claiming dire poverty is remeniscent of the old days.


So the Players stance that "we will not negotiate a salary cap" is what exactly? Sounds exactly like "my way or the highway".

I certainly don't recall reading that players were underpaid because the owners cried poor 60 years ago... they used several other dishonest and bullying techniques, but that one though possible, seems more invented by you.


Putting words in my mouth is emotional foolishness. See my comments above on the cap to see how I feel about it. Owners can (and will) circumvent caps. They can't circumvent a substantial tax on payroll - and the players are smart enough to recognize this.
lol I didn't put any words in your mouth, i was responding to what you wrote directly. Your own quote hardly makes you seem any more logical. The last part of your post is paranoia. Of course I don't believe that most business people are inherently honest, or that some owners wouldn't try and figure a way to get around any agreement, but it's not impossible to set up rules that punish owners who try and bend the rules. Similiar rules (on trades, etc.), exist now in the NHL, and there's no need to believe they couldn't work. Again it's your suggestion that Owners are bad and players are good comments that get a bit old... and irrational to boot. You did point out that greed is a human trait, and the players must be as human as the owners.

quat is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 07:47 PM
  #74
quat
winsome, loathsome
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 9,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife
Supposedly, for the purposes of the NHL's URO, franchises can allocate any ticket value they want to luxury seats. Under-report the revenue and you skew the player cost ratio in your favour.
Then any new agreement would have to define very clearly what the revenues were. If they owners want some kind of cap, then they are going to have open books with regards to the NHL. When they get caught BSing, they are levied very hefty fines. All cheaters should be punished.

I's be willing to bet the Owners fudge a certain amount of stuff to make them look one way or the other, but the reality of the market for Canadian teams (whom I care most about), remains. The example you give wouldn't be difficult to discover if it exists.

quat is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 04:26 AM
  #75
impudent_lowlife
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quat
lol I didn't put any words in your mouth, i was responding to what you wrote directly. Your own quote hardly makes you seem any more logical. The last part of your post is paranoia. Of course I don't believe that most business people are inherently honest, or that some owners wouldn't try and figure a way to get around any agreement, but it's not impossible to set up rules that punish owners who try and bend the rules. Similiar rules (on trades, etc.), exist now in the NHL, and there's no need to believe they couldn't work. Again it's your suggestion that Owners are bad and players are good comments that get a bit old... and irrational to boot. You did point out that greed is a human trait, and the players must be as human as the owners.
I think the quote was quite logical. The NBA cap was circumvented by owners who back-loaded contracts. A luxury tax in tandem with revenue sharing solves the problem, imo. I agree that greed is a human trait - both players and owners are or can be greedy - that's given. But the difference is is that we all know what players make - their contracts are publicly displayed. The same cannot be said for owners' (very possibly under-reported) revenues. Is that irrational? No, just plain fact. And paranoia? How's this for paranoia: players don't trust owners, owners don't trust the NHLPA, and most importantly, owners don't trust fellow owners. A cap will only work if teams like Detroit and New York comply to those stringent rules you propose - and I don't see that happening.

impudent_lowlife 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 07:21 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.