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.

NHL owners again showing they have mush for brains

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-06-2004, 10:37 AM
  #1
Kickabrat
WHAT - ME WORRY?
 
Kickabrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,903
vCash: 500
NHL owners again showing they have mush for brains

Quote from the Damian Cox's column of October 6, in the Toronto Star:

Quote:
"We've got other things we've worked on that we haven't shown them yet, but we really believe they've got to get serious first," Daly said. "If we call them, Bob will misrepresent it. He'll spin the players that we're getting soft. But every day is another day lost."
Quote:

What a bunch of horse manure. Get on the godd**n phone Daly. If it will kick off negotiations again what the ******* is he waiting for?

Can't someone out there get them in the same room to at least begin talking? Specially if the owners have something new to put forward?

Kickabrat is offline  
Old
10-06-2004, 10:43 AM
  #2
Legolas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 770
vCash: 500
This is complete garbage. I agree. Unfortunately, there's really nothing to compel them to get back to bargaining, which is so sad. I am not really surprised that ego is screwing everything up right now, but it's still sad.

If Daly is scared that the NHLPA will just twist whatever bargaining attempt he makes, why doesn't he just put something out there which is obviously still going to be a good deal for the owners and then negotiate on that? How stupid would the players look if the owners actually came across as being more reasonable than they are now? The owners are taking a hard line right now and they're still winning the PR battle (which means very little, but still).

Legolas is offline  
Old
10-06-2004, 10:47 AM
  #3
Riggs
Kaptain
 
Riggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 3,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickabrat
Can't someone out there get them in the same room to at least begin talking?
I would think Mario would be the logical choice here. Players and owners would listen to him. He is probably the only person that would not BS either side.

Riggs is offline  
Old
10-06-2004, 10:54 AM
  #4
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickabrat


What a bunch of horse manure. Get on the godd**n phone Daly. If it will kick off negotiations again what the ******* is he waiting for?
Doesn't the mere fact that he went public with that quote to a national newspaper accomplish just that?

He just dangled a carrot to Bob Goodenow in way that both suggests that there is something new on the table and in a way that tells him that in order to see it the PA has to develop a new attitude (in the NHL's mind) towards the process.

Daly with the serve.... let's see if Goodenow returns volley....

copperandblue is offline  
Old
10-06-2004, 11:40 AM
  #5
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue
Doesn't the mere fact that he went public with that quote to a national newspaper accomplish just that?

He just dangled a carrot to Bob Goodenow in way that both suggests that there is something new on the table and in a way that tells him that in order to see it the PA has to develop a new attitude (in the NHL's mind) towards the process.

Daly with the serve.... let's see if Goodenow returns volley....
Also, I wouldn't be suprised if both sides have offers ready, but are just "waiting for the right time" to bring them out...

djhn579 is offline  
Old
10-06-2004, 11:43 AM
  #6
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riggs
I would think Mario would be the logical choice here. Players and owners would listen to him. He is probably the only person that would not BS either side.
And Gretzky.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
10-06-2004, 11:55 AM
  #7
Benji Frank
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,650
vCash: 500
Next Friday's payday. That's when the players will finally feel a little lighter. I'm sure the owners are already starting to feel it with the arena upkeep, etc. Hopefully after mid-October, we'll start seeing less of the stubborniss and more negotiations......

Am I doing the math right?? Next Friday, the owners will be forced to void just shy of US$ 100,000,000 gross in payroll cheques????

Geez, you'd think some of the government levels would step in and say what concessions can we give arena-wise, etc so you guys can start up again & we can get our hands on our share of that???? This doesn't even take into consideration all the pogey cheques that'll be going out for non-players that have been laid off as a result!!!! Nor the hotels, restaurants, travel industry, etc.!!!!

Mr. Martin ... Mr.Bush ... Mr. Premier's ... Mr. Governor's ... tell Mr.Bettman & Mr.Goodenow to Smarten the **** UP & get this thing done!!!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:


Last edited by Sotnos: 10-06-2004 at 12:05 PM. Reason: circumventing obscenity filter
Benji Frank is offline  
Old
10-06-2004, 12:27 PM
  #8
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
 
Motown Beatdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indianapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,554
vCash: 450
I wonder if the owners new unreleased offer is anything like what TSN came up with? We know they would never admit it, but now i dont care. Hopefully Bettman and Goodenow stop playing an ego war. I know unlikely.

Motown Beatdown is offline  
Old
10-06-2004, 01:58 PM
  #9
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue
Doesn't the mere fact that he went public with that quote to a national newspaper accomplish just that?
Yup. This isn't a stupid move at all.

And he's not wrong. Negotiations don't work until there's some pressure on both sides. The player's haven't even lost a single paycheque yet, you think they're going to suddenly go "oh, you're right, there really is a problem!"

PecaFan is offline  
Old
10-06-2004, 09:00 PM
  #10
struckmatch
Registered User
 
struckmatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 3,963
vCash: 500
Seriously, this lockout is just starting to take its toll on me, if you think about it, we'd be hyping up another NHL season right about now, and going through exhibition games. Instead we're stuck in a lockout situation in which the 2 most EGOTISTICAL morons are the ones responsible for negotiations.

They are so egotistical that they will in fact, play the blame game like little children where they don't regress at all, or look themselves in the mirror, instead they blame the other side continously. This is a pathetic display of business relations, when the product(the NHL and its players) refuse to respect, and acknowledge their customers(the fans) as actual human beings, instead we're just walking wallets ready to fill both of their bank accounts.

It's ridiculous.

struckmatch is offline  
Old
10-06-2004, 09:16 PM
  #11
Optimist*
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 676
vCash: 500
Players lose 1.5billion, owners lose 0, sitting out. Thats because the owners lose 300 playing or not. Now Im not the brightest person in the world, but isnt it obvious who will cave. Remember the owners make up the money they lose because their franchise values will go up with the right deal. The players never get theirs back.

Optimist* is offline  
Old
10-06-2004, 09:27 PM
  #12
mr gib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,779
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eticket
Players lose 1.5billion, owners lose 0, sitting out. Thats because the owners lose 300 playing or not. Now Im not the brightest person in the world, but isnt it obvious who will cave. Remember the owners make up the money they lose because their franchise values will go up with the right deal. The players never get theirs back.
player's don't lose anything till oct 15th

mr gib is offline  
Old
10-06-2004, 09:50 PM
  #13
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
I never had much respect for the Flyers or their owner, but that could be changing...

About the players 5% salary give back...
"It's an indication they tried to do something for press relations," he said. "But they knew it wasn't going to help the league in any way, shape or form. Bob Goodenow doesn't want to make the kind of deal that needs to be made. As far as the Flyers are concerned, we're behind Gary Bettman 100 percent. We're going to fight for what we think is right.

About the players wanting a free market...
"When Bob Goodenow says he wants the free market, well, I'll give him the free market," Snider told reporters. "A free market is no union. That's a free market. You don't have guaranteed contracts, you don't have arbitration, you don't have anything. When I got into hockey, you signed a player for a year and when he came to training camp, you signed him for the next year. That's a free market."

http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=100934


And this GM has my respect too...

One NHL GM's off-the-record observation: "We'll lose a year and then see who comes back." Our view: Plenty of players will be ready to sign.

http://msn.foxsports.com/story/3062136

djhn579 is offline  
Old
10-06-2004, 10:11 PM
  #14
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,278
vCash: 500
The alleged purpose of a new CBA is to protect owners from themselves and their uncontrolled irrational spending. If this is true, why would the players ever fear a free market? If this is true, what is Snider shooting off his mouth about? On the one hand he cant help but lose money, on hte other he threatens a free market where he will teach them a lesson?

And fans support him for it.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
10-06-2004, 10:55 PM
  #15
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eticket
Players lose 1.5billion, owners lose 0, sitting out. Thats because the owners lose 300 playing or not. Now Im not the brightest person in the world, but isnt it obvious who will cave. Remember the owners make up the money they lose because their franchise values will go up with the right deal. The players never get theirs back.
That's not true at all.

Flyers have stated they'll lose minimum if $15 million if the season is wiped out, and that certainly isn't the case if a season is played.

Also if revenue sharing is a big part of the new agreement, franchise values for some of the big market teams could possibly drop.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
10-06-2004, 11:06 PM
  #16
Haj
Registered User
 
Haj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,572
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by puck you
Seriously, this lockout is just starting to take its toll on me, if you think about it, we'd be hyping up another NHL season right about now, and going through exhibition games. Instead we're stuck in a lockout situation in which the 2 most EGOTISTICAL morons are the ones responsible for negotiations.
You want that these two egotistical morons should have an
accident ?

Haj is offline  
Old
10-06-2004, 11:07 PM
  #17
Coffey77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
That's not true at all.

Flyers have stated they'll lose minimum if $15 million if the season is wiped out, and that certainly isn't the case if a season is played.

Also if revenue sharing is a big part of the new agreement, franchise values for some of the big market teams could possibly drop.
Teams will lose money. I don't see how they won't. That's why they set up the $300 million dollar war chest in the first place. Also teams could lose their fan base which IMO is critical. Obviously places like Toronto or Philly don't have to worry about that but what about Columbus? Or Nashville? Carolina?

Plus there are costs related to the building, whether or not NHL hockey is played.

If teams didn't lose anything then they could have done this in 1994 and got what they really wanted. But they didn't. Everyone stands to lose something the longer hockey is not there.

Coffey77 is offline  
Old
10-07-2004, 03:45 AM
  #18
Optimist*
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
That's not true at all.

Flyers have stated they'll lose minimum if $15 million if the season is wiped out, and that certainly isn't the case if a season is played.

Also if revenue sharing is a big part of the new agreement, franchise values for some of the big market teams could possibly drop.

With a 31mm payroll, Flyers would be making plenty of money which means their franchise value would go way up. It works for them in a big way.

Optimist* is offline  
Old
10-07-2004, 06:24 AM
  #19
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,330
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haj
You want that these two egotistical morons should have an
accident ?
In the words of Tony Soprano... things could happen...

BLONG7 is offline  
Old
10-07-2004, 07:15 AM
  #20
Papadice
Registered User
 
Papadice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Moncton, NB, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 813
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Papadice
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coffey77
Obviously places like Toronto or Philly don't have to worry about that but what about Columbus? Or Nashville? Carolina?
I get so frustrated when I hear people bring up Columbus all the time as a franchise that needs saving, or as a franchise that might not survive the lockout... Columbus MADE money last year... If I remember correctly they made about $4 million last season in profit... They have a great fan base and the minor hockey in that community is booming... I know when they came into the league it was a bit of a joke, the idea of hockey surviving in Columbus... But it's not just surviving, it's thriving, and that franchise is very solid...

Papadice is offline  
Old
10-07-2004, 07:30 AM
  #21
Papadice
Registered User
 
Papadice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Moncton, NB, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 813
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Papadice
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coffey77
If teams didn't lose anything then they could have done this in 1994 and got what they really wanted. But they didn't. Everyone stands to lose something the longer hockey is not there.
Based on that comment, you don't understand the difference in the dynamics of this lockout compared to the 1994 lockout.

In 1994 everyone thought that it would be a very short lockout and no real planning was done, by the players OR the owners. They all went into the lockout believing that it would be over quickly and they'd get what they wanted. It didn't take long for economic pressure to set in on the owners and they caved for the sake of saving the season and getting revenue coming back in due to the playoffs. Also, in 1994 NHL teams were not losing nearly as much money as they are today.

The difference is that for this current lockout, the owners have been planning for it for years. They have built up a $300 million war chest to help them through. They are all anticipating that the lockout could last a long time, possibly even a couple of years. They are prepared for this and they are willing to do whatever it takes to get through it.

It's not that teams aren't losing anything during this lockout. It's that teams are losing LESS during this lockout than they would be if they played the season (for the most part). Sure there are teams like Toronto and Philly that make profits every year and of course they are losing money during this lockout but there are a lot of teams that last season actually lost more money than they are projecting to lose during a locked out season. And you add in the $300 million dollar war chest to help them through and you can see that the dynamics of this lockout are FAR different from those of 1994.

As for everyone standing to lose from the lockout, I agree... BUT, knowing the financial winfall the owners will have at the end of all of this, the money that they will be able to rake in if they get the new CBA that they are looking for, it seams to be worthwhile for the owners.

Papadice is offline  
Old
10-07-2004, 07:31 AM
  #22
mr gib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,779
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgallant
I get so frustrated when I hear people bring up Columbus all the time as a franchise that needs saving, or as a franchise that might not survive the lockout... Columbus MADE money last year... If I remember correctly they made about $4 million last season in profit... They have a great fan base and the minor hockey in that community is booming... I know when they came into the league it was a bit of a joke, the idea of hockey surviving in Columbus... But it's not just surviving, it's thriving, and that franchise is very solid...
you're right - columbus if fine -

mr gib is offline  
Old
10-07-2004, 07:37 AM
  #23
mr gib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,779
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgallant
Based on that comment, you don't understand the difference in the dynamics of this lockout compared to the 1994 lockout.

In 1994 everyone thought that it would be a very short lockout and no real planning was done, by the players OR the owners. They all went into the lockout believing that it would be over quickly and they'd get what they wanted. It didn't take long for economic pressure to set in on the owners and they caved for the sake of saving the season and getting revenue coming back in due to the playoffs. Also, in 1994 NHL teams were not losing nearly as much money as they are today.

The difference is that for this current lockout, the owners have been planning for it for years. They have built up a $300 million war chest to help them through. They are all anticipating that the lockout could last a long time, possibly even a couple of years. They are prepared for this and they are willing to do whatever it takes to get through it.

It's not that teams aren't losing anything during this lockout. It's that teams are losing LESS during this lockout than they would be if they played the season (for the most part). Sure there are teams like Toronto and Philly that make profits every year and of course they are losing money during this lockout but there are a lot of teams that last season actually lost more money than they are projecting to lose during a locked out season. And you add in the $300 million dollar war chest to help them through and you can see that the dynamics of this lockout are FAR different from those of 1994.

As for everyone standing to lose from the lockout, I agree... BUT, knowing the financial winfall the owners will have at the end of all of this, the money that they will be able to rake in if they get the new CBA that they are looking for, it seams to be worthwhile for the owners.
very well said - the only teams on the brink are the - so called - small market teams - both gary and bob do not want to lose them - ironically through the rejection of revenue sharing - the wealthy teams just don't want to give back - having said that - this is a labour negotiation - keep in mind the - drop dead date is december 15th -

mr gib is offline  
Old
10-07-2004, 07:46 AM
  #24
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 110,046
vCash: 5792
Quote:
Originally Posted by eticket
With a 31mm payroll, Flyers would be making plenty of money which means their franchise value would go way up. It works for them in a big way.

A $31M payroll does no good in a lockout.


The Flyers are not the only big market team, the Flyers value would probably go up, but there are other big markets who wouldn't (Boston, Colorado)

GKJ is offline  
Old
10-07-2004, 08:24 AM
  #25
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eticket
With a 31mm payroll, Flyers would be making plenty of money which means their franchise value would go way up. It works for them in a big way.
Ed Snider's doesn't own the Flyers to make tons of money.

He's more concerned with winning, as long as he isn't losing millions per year he's fine.

Also Snider is realistic enough to know that a $31 million hard cap will NEVER happen.

John Flyers Fan 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 11:56 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.