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.

Denver Post writer interviews Bettman

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-18-2004, 10:02 PM
  #26
Poignant Discussion
I tell it like it is
 
Poignant Discussion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gatineau, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,757
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Poignant Discussion Send a message via Yahoo to Poignant Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
And clearly you don't understand that the swords cuts both ways.

A market flooded with UFA's would immediately deflate their value.

No standard player contract = end of guaranteed contracts and easy removal of non-performers.
No arbitration rights.
No automatic raises for those making less than the average.

The union can de-certify at any time. If they really are better off under a "market system" with each individual offering his services to the highest bidder at the end of each contract, why haven't they already done so?
Dude you are outmatched here and are not listening to Tom's argument. If you think owners that have invested 100 million+ in debatable locations can afford to have a whole season wiped out then you don't know much about business

The owners are STILL paying for

- Rent for buildings
- Minor League players
- Injured players
- Team staff
- Coachs and G.M's
- Repaying TV contracts and advertisment if the season is wiped out with the likely chance of the $$$ of the contracts when they expire being WAY lower than they are now


And they are bringing in $0.00

The players are making money vacationing and playing over in Europe

The owners as they have invested more money than you or i will ever see have WAY more to lose than the players who can still make a living.

And don't use the if they will play for 500,000 in Europe why wont they do that in the NHL? Thats apples and oranges. In europe you play half a season compared to the NHL. So those 350,000 dollar contracts to the Corey Hirsches are really 700,000 in the NHL and that is being vastly overpayed

Poignant Discussion is offline  
Old
11-18-2004, 10:56 PM
  #27
Quantas
Registered User
 
Quantas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 843
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NataSatan666
Dude you are outmatched here and are not listening to Tom's argument. If you think owners that have invested 100 million+ in debatable locations can afford to have a whole season wiped out then you don't know much about business
I don't think this is quite right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NataSatan666
The owners are STILL paying for

- Rent for buildings
- Minor League players
- Injured players
- Team staff
- Coachs and G.M's
- Repaying TV contracts and advertisment if the season is wiped out with the likely chance of the $$$ of the contracts when they expire being WAY lower than they are now
1. Most teams own their own buildings, so it's questionable as to how much "rent" is actually being paid. Besides, if they aren't using the facilities, is it fair to charge them rent?
2. Minor league players are also being payed by the revenues generated by their own home rinks, so I don't think this should be a big problem, especially since most (if not all) AHL'ers make 5 figures, not 6 or 7.
3. Injured players are specific to the team, not all teams have them. Plus I'd be surprised if any player is still on the DL once we hit the half way point of the season.
4. I don't think any of the coaching/training staff is being paid while the lockout continues. And I think we all know what's going on regarding the front-office staff. If they haven't been laid off, they're getting reduced pay (which might be further reduced, if not eliminated, when the season is cancelled)
5. It's the television station's responsibility to refund advertisers' money...if they collected in the first place. Don't forget, everyone knew this was coming 2 years ago. As for teams refunding a portion of the television contract...I don't know how that's being handled. Maybe everything's on hold until this is sorted out, maybe the station doesn't fork over this year's portion (since I doubt they paid the whole rights fee upfront), maybe the team has to pay it back...who knows.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NataSatan666
And they are bringing in $0.00
Except they can now schedule other events in their buildings. I don't know if they're getting the kind of revenue hockey brought in (low attendance teams might actually be better off, since they can schedule events that actually draw people in) but it's still something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NataSatan666
The players are making money vacationing and playing over in Europe

The owners as they have invested more money than you or i will ever see have WAY more to lose than the players who can still make a living.
So you're saying millionaires have more saved up then multi-millionaires/billionaires? Sorry, but that doesn't add up. Players are playing for less than 1/4 of their salary in foreign cultures. How long before the novelty of a new environment fades? A few have already returned saying that it just wasn't for them.

But the biggest problem is that less than half of the players are overseas. Yes more will go once (not if) the season is cancelled, but the majority won't/can't. This group IMO will consist primarily of the 3rd and 4th liners, the group who has the most to lose. How long do you think they'll sit and watch their future earnings slip away, all in the name of "fairness", "principle", "taking care of future players" or whatever else the NHLPA says. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and if the NHL can legally declare an impass, I know who I think will cross the line first. It won't happen right away, but no 4th liner is going to let 2 seasons go by without a paycheck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NataSatan666
And don't use the if they will play for 500,000 in Europe why wont they do that in the NHL? Thats apples and oranges. In europe you play half a season compared to the NHL. So those 350,000 dollar contracts to the Corey Hirsches are really 700,000 in the NHL and that is being vastly overpayed
It really doesn't matter what their contract gets pro-rated to, since at the end of the day, they're still only getting $500,000. You may only have to work 3 months for it, but when you're used to getting $3,000,000...how long would you be satisfied with $500,000?

Quantas is offline  
Old
11-18-2004, 11:33 PM
  #28
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NataSatan666
Dude you are outmatched here and are not listening to Tom's argument. If you think owners that have invested 100 million+ in debatable locations can afford to have a whole season wiped out then you don't know much about business

The owners are STILL paying for

- Rent for buildings
- Minor League players
- Injured players
- Team staff
- Coachs and G.M's
- Repaying TV contracts and advertisment if the season is wiped out with the likely chance of the $$$ of the contracts when they expire being WAY lower than they are now


And they are bringing in $0.00

The players are making money vacationing and playing over in Europe

The owners as they have invested more money than you or i will ever see have WAY more to lose than the players who can still make a living.

And don't use the if they will play for 500,000 in Europe why wont they do that in the NHL? Thats apples and oranges. In europe you play half a season compared to the NHL. So those 350,000 dollar contracts to the Corey Hirsches are really 700,000 in the NHL and that is being vastly overpayed
Dude,

You do understand the concept of losing money even while taking in revenue, right?

Even using Forbes' highly PA freindly numbers, they lost $200 M in the last 2 seasons. The owners have the financial wherewithal to sustain heavy losses in the short term to get a favourable position long term and have been planning for this eventuality for quite some time now by putting aside more than enough money to cover their expenses.

The players will begin to discover another economic principle you might want to familiarize yourself with--opportunity cost.

Let them go play in Europe for a fraction of what they could make in the NHL, just to "make a living". I'm sure they won't really miss the millions this decision will cause them to leave sitting on the table when it comes time for life after their short hockey careers.

I pity the players if Goodenow has them believing, like you appear to, that the owners aren't prepared to see this through to it's inevitable conclusion. The membership of the PA will pay dearly for Bob's severe miscalculation.

SENSible1* 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 09:18 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.