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.

Is the NHLPA ready to alter its position?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-19-2004, 07:10 AM
  #1
swflyers8*
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Upper Darby, PA
Posts: 2,908
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to swflyers8*
Is the NHLPA ready to alter its position?

Toronto Globe & Mail

Privately, a handful of agents who emerged from Wednesday's meeting with the NHLPA in Chicago suggested just the opposite may occur - that the NHLPA would forward a proposal to the league before Christmas that would include more of what's already been offered: A payroll tax, a salary rollback, concessions on entry-level contracts and a push for more revenue-sharing within the industry. Unless commissioner Gary Bettman executes an about-face on the matter of cost certainty, the NHL won't go for it.

swflyers8* is offline  
Old
11-19-2004, 07:29 AM
  #2
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Interesting article.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
11-19-2004, 07:30 AM
  #3
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 110,422
vCash: 5602
The real question is "Are the owners ready to alter their position?" Since they're the ones reporting fake numbers.

GKJ is offline  
Old
11-19-2004, 07:36 AM
  #4
kremlin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 854
vCash: 500
Owners shouldn't alter their position, as it will hurt them in the end. They have to stick it out. Declaring bankruptcy & folding the league is a serious option in my opinion.

kremlin is offline  
Old
11-19-2004, 09:47 AM
  #5
Peter
Registered User
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alberta
Posts: 3,663
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
Interesting article.
Brian Burke, on TSN (see the video file on their website), said almost the same thing. That he did hear a new proposal would be coming from the NHLPA in December but in his opinion it would not be very different from what they have already proposed. They would change it enough that it would public relations wise force the owners to counter.

Interesting to note that today it was announced that Bettman will be meeting with all 30 GM's on Dec. 2.

Call me deluded or just very hopeful but I think talks will begin sooner than later and we will have a season.

Peter is offline  
Old
11-19-2004, 09:58 AM
  #6
handtrick
Registered User
 
handtrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 3,090
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
The real question is "Are the owners ready to alter their position?" Since they're the ones reporting fake numbers.

It seems, for a moderator, you seem very hung up on this one issue [the Forbes report]. This is the 4th thread you have put this same simplistic comment, paraphrased a different way, in addition to the redundant thread that you started, regarding the Forbes article. Thankfully, that thread was deleted, as the original one had 12 pages of discussion . Don't you have anything else to add to the discussion?

handtrick is offline  
Old
11-19-2004, 10:10 AM
  #7
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
The real question is "Are the owners ready to alter their position?" Since they're the ones reporting fake numbers.
And forbes came to this conclusion through 2nd and 3rd hand information... pretty reliable.

__________________
TheSpecialist - MacT thinks he was that good of a hockey player when in actuality he was no better then a Louie Debrusk.
dawgbone is offline  
Old
11-19-2004, 10:38 AM
  #8
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 110,422
vCash: 5602
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
And forbes came to this conclusion through 2nd and 3rd hand information... pretty reliable.

You're just someone in denial then. Forbes wouldn't be such a high profile economic magazine company if they were as unreliable as you beleive and get information through 2nd and 3rd hand information. Try again.

GKJ is offline  
Old
11-19-2004, 10:44 AM
  #9
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
You're just someone in denial then. Forbes wouldn't be such a high profile economic magazine company if they were as unreliable as you beleive and get information through 2nd and 3rd hand information. Try again.
They did say in their article that they got the numbers through bankers and other sources, not from the teams or the NHL. That is an admission that their numbers are 2nd hand at best.

djhn579 is offline  
Old
11-19-2004, 10:46 AM
  #10
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
You're just someone in denial then. Forbes wouldn't be such a high profile economic magazine company if they were as unreliable as you beleive and get information through 2nd and 3rd hand information. Try again.
In denial?

They said it themselves. They didn't get any of their information from looking at teams books, URO's or anything. They got it as 2nd and 3rd hand information.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
11-19-2004, 10:54 AM
  #11
Orange
Registered User
 
Orange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,153
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
You're just someone in denial then. Forbes wouldn't be such a high profile economic magazine company if they were as unreliable as you beleive and get information through 2nd and 3rd hand information. Try again.
What ? Forbes wasn't responsible for the info, Michael Ozanian was. Forbes' editor only needed to think the numbers were good enough to publish. It's not like this article was peer reviewed. Forbes does mainstream economics, I don't call that a very reliable source.

Orange is offline  
Old
11-19-2004, 11:19 AM
  #12
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
The real question is "Are the owners ready to alter their position?" Since they're the ones reporting fake numbers.
They are? Got a link? Oh and that Forbes story doesn't apply since they have never even seen the numbers.

Pepper is offline  
Old
11-19-2004, 11:29 AM
  #13
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orange
What ? Forbes wasn't responsible for the info, Michael Ozanian was. Forbes' editor only needed to think the numbers were good enough to publish. It's not like this article was peer reviewed. Forbes does mainstream economics, I don't call that a very reliable source.
debunking forbes

Check out this thread and the work by "CW" in poking holes in this Forbes report and their history of miscalculations with regards to sports in general and hockey in particular. Some really excellent stuff.

Here's an example.
Quote:
In 1998, Forbes valued the Blues at $154 mil. In 1999, they sold for $100 mil. (-54 mil)

In 1999, Forbes had the Penguins valued at $100 mil. They sold for $76 mil. (-24 mil)

In 1999, Forbes had the Caps valued at $145 mil. They sold for $85 mil. (-60 mil)

In 1998, Forbes had the Sabres valued at $91 mil. They sold for $76 mil. (-15 mil)

So on these four recent deals, Forbes values them at $490 mil but when someone actually had to pay for them, they only got $336 mil. Forbes was short -$154 mil on four deals when their valuations faced reality.

In 2000, the NJ Devils were purchased for $175 mil and then sold shortly there after for $124 mil. (-51 mil). Let's face it : this was a pure hosing of a deal when it originally sold.

In 2000, when the Islanders were purchased, $188 million was paid but $85 mil went towards buying the separate cable deal (according to the Pickett deal). The balance of the team went for $103 mil and Forbes had it at valued at $139 mil. (possibly short -36 mil).

So the claim by Forbes that the owners have recently been making out like bandits on asset growth gets very shakey when someone's hand starts to scribble out a cheque for buying an NHL team.


In 1995, the LA Kings were sold for $113 million. In 1999, Forbes valued them at $109 million. When they moved into an arena they invested in for co-ownership in 2000, their value suddenly leaped to $160 million. In other words, they had to put a bunch of money in to get that $160 mil value.

You also have to also bear that in mind when looking at the asset values .. what money did the the owners have to kick in to crank up the values ... it didn't all just come from thin air or from non-existent profits .. the way Forbes seems to portray it.

I continue to feel that it is a poor article on a slippery foundation.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
11-19-2004, 11:47 AM
  #14
windowlicker
Registered User
 
windowlicker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Murky Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 2,181
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
You're just someone in denial then. Forbes wouldn't be such a high profile economic magazine company if they were as unreliable as you beleive and get information through 2nd and 3rd hand information. Try again.
Come on. For a Mod nearing 7,000, you can't afford to be this naive. As I stated in a previous thread (responding to something you said):
http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.p...1&page=1&pp=15
Mr. Ozanian (The Editor of the article in Forbes) is a known union mouthpiece. Secondly, the numbers they used were estimations & projections, based on estimates & projections. Levitt had, at his disposal, the actual books & numbers. On top of which, he was paid before completing his analysis.

Moral of the story? If your pro-Pa right now, nothing will change your mind. If your pro-NHL? Nothing will change your mind. The only thing we can hope for is keeping
the arguments as civil as possible.

windowlicker is offline  
Old
11-19-2004, 11:48 AM
  #15
Benji Frank
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,650
vCash: 500
The Forbes article also points out that their numbers do not include interest, taxes, depreciation & amortization.

As was pointed out here, there's been alot of new arena's purchased as well as teams changing hands. I can't say for sure, but I'm willing to wager there was some significant financing involved & thus interest expenses, as well as the purchase of goodwill, etc, not to mention the capitizing of arena's new & remodelled..... if forbes tried to do a calculation for these numbers, I'd be surprised if they still had an article worth printing disputing the NHL numbers.......

Benji Frank is offline  
Old
11-19-2004, 12:15 PM
  #16
eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: around the 49th para
Posts: 1,607
vCash: 500
The author of the article was interviewed on Leafs Lunch by Jeff Marrick and Bill Watters. He acknowledged not having all the facts or access to all the facts. He also acknowledged that at least 17 NHL teams were losing money which supports the Leavitt report. He acknowledged spending only a few days compiling the report unlike Leavitt who took over 6 months with several accountants working on it. I take the Leavitt report as being closer to reality give or take 20%. Let's get over this aspect as all it serves is to delay the process of healing and finding a solution.

The owners and Bettman have acknowledged making mistakes in the past. The owners and Bettman have acknowledged that they need a system that protects one owner's competitive spirit or stupidiy from the other. The onwers being the ones that sign the players paycheck want a system that is fair to both sides and one that assures financial viability for 30 teams to play on a more level playing field. Sounds logical to just about everyone except Bob Goodenow and a few of his clones.

eye is offline  
Old
11-19-2004, 12:38 PM
  #17
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
 
Jaded-Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,847
vCash: 500
You all should be happy with the owner's stand. I live in Pittsburgh and watched the same thing in baseball, where we were told, just wait, this next renegotiation the owners will stand their ground and we will get the problems in baseball fixed once and for all. What happened? After we spent a fortune in taxpayer money on new stadiums, small and mid-sized owners caved, selling out the fans in exchange for the big markets paying what amounts to bribe money to the teams who were not the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs and a small handful of others. There was no requirement at all that revenue sharing be used toward fielding a quality team, here in Pittsburgh they got millions in revenue sharing, averaged over 2 million fans a year for the past three years, got huge additional monies from staduim concessions, parking, luxury boxes which brought in almost as much as the regular tickets, naming rights, etc, etc and fielded a team with a smaller payroll than the Penguins fielded during most years, just over $30 million. The Yankees had a payroll of about a quarter billion dollars, almost ten times as much. Revenue sharing sucks big time. Now no owner needs to worry about bankruptcy, they all are rolling in shared money, but who got left out? The fans, who after shelling out tax dollars for the next forty years on a new stadium gets to field a team with a payroll just over 10% of that of the Yankees or Red Sox. And you all want that for hockey? . . .

If the owners in the NHL stand their ground on this they will gain my undying loyalty, and deservedly so, as they will prove that they care to put a competitive team on the ice for the fans as much as line their pockets. Baseball lost my loyalty long ago as they have proven the opposite, the fans always come last.


Last edited by Jaded-Fan: 11-19-2004 at 12:46 PM.
Jaded-Fan is online now  
Old
11-19-2004, 12:46 PM
  #18
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 17,233
vCash: 500
Quote:
A possible solution that might be acceptable to both sides: Go with a hybrid system, which begins with the central operating principle of the NHLPA position, a payroll tax, but also incorporates a spending ceiling as well.

Or to put it in more concrete terms, establish a payroll tax threshold of $35-million per team, with a dollar-for-dollar tax team that exceeds the spending threshold. Then put an absolute maximum limit of $50-million per team, a threshold that no team could exceed.

The players won't like the concept because it is a cap - a soft cap, not a hard cap - but a cap nonetheless. The owners won't like it because it doesn't give them cost certainly. It gives them something close to cost certainty, but not the absolute, idiot-proof system the league imagines.

In other words, it's a compromise that might represent the perfect solution, if the two sides were of a mind to actually negotiate a solution.

Someone tell me why this would be a bad system.

triggrman is online now  
Old
11-19-2004, 12:54 PM
  #19
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
 
Jaded-Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,847
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by triggrman
Someone tell me why this would be a bad system.

Pick me, pick me . . .

Because this is a group endeavor as well as a competitive venture. Detroit to pick one that everyone cites as the primary overspender, would not be much of a business if there were no other teams, it needs the other teams to be in business, period. And if you want to field the best product overall, not just in Detroit or Colorado or a few others, you need to provide a fair game, one that the fans in all of the cities, not just a handful, feel that they are not discriminated against. Afterall, there are far more aggregate fans in those cities than there are in those few cities with overspending franchises. True, maybe you could put the thumb on the scale to a lesser degree and still field somewhat competitive teams in those not 'blessed' cities, but the health of the entire league would suffer as the same teams are percieved as having an unfair playing advantage. As they do not have to see their stars leave, while most other teams do, to those handful of teams. $15 million a year more than another team can buy a lot of hockey player skill.

It is short sighted not to see that we all are in the same boat, and if you field a product that everyone sees as truly fairly structured, the league would become more popular overall.

Jaded-Fan is online now  
Old
11-19-2004, 01:00 PM
  #20
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 17,233
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded-Fan
Pick me, pick me . . .

Because this is a group endeavor as well as a competitive venture. Detroit to pick one that everyone cites as the primary overspender, would not be much of a business if there were no other teams, it needs the other teams to be in business, period. And if you want to field the best product overall, not just in Detroit or Colorado or a few others, you need to provide a fair game, one that the fans in all of the cities, not just a handful, feel that they are not discriminated against. Afterall, there are far more aggregate fans in those cities than there are in those few cities with overspending franchises. True, maybe you could put the thumb on the scale to a lesser degree and still field somewhat competitive teams in those not 'blessed' cities, but the health of the entire league would suffer as the same teams are percieved as having an unfair playing advantage. As they do not have to see their stars leave, while most other teams do, to those handful of teams. $15 million a year more than another team can buy a lot of hockey player skill.

It is short sighted not to see that we all are in the same boat, and if you field a product that everyone sees as truly fairly structured, the league would become more popular overall.
If Detroit spends more than the allowed amount they are taxed. That tax goes to the other teams allowing them to spend a little more. Also, cutting it off at $50 still limits them. I promise if Detroit goes over so will Colorado, Philly and Dallas. Lets say they all hit the max of 50, that's 15M each in taxes or 60M total or more than 2M dollars going to each team.

triggrman is online now  
Old
11-19-2004, 01:05 PM
  #21
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
 
Jaded-Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,847
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by triggrman
If Detroit spends more than the allowed amount they are taxed. That tax goes to the other teams allowing them to spend a little more. Also, cutting it off at $50 still limits them. I promise if Detroit goes over so will Colorado, Philly and Dallas. Lets say they all hit the max of 50, that's 15M each in taxes or 60M total or more than 2M dollars going to each team.

The Yankees and a number of other teams pay a 'tax' in baseball . . . and baseball has not fixed a damn thing. Revenue sharing is not a solution, take it from one who watched their son of a ***** owner in baseball just take the money and field crap, hell watched most of the owners who got that revenue sharing check do that, while the big market teams could give a damn about paying the tax, and then some. It did not fix the payroll disparity a bit, in fact if anything it has grown worse.

Jaded-Fan is online now  
Old
11-19-2004, 01:09 PM
  #22
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 17,233
vCash: 500
Baseball taxed two teams last season. The Yankees and the Red Sox, right?


Everyone knows that baseballs tax is a joke, it's set at what 160M? While some teams have payrolls at 25M?

That's a little more different than a 15M difference.

triggrman is online now  
Old
11-19-2004, 01:12 PM
  #23
Orange
Registered User
 
Orange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,153
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
debunking forbes

Check out this thread and the work by "CW" in poking holes in this Forbes report and their history of miscalculations with regards to sports in general and hockey in particular. Some really excellent stuff.
Thanks for the read ! It reinforces my views on the so called "Forbes" numbers. To make a parallel with the scientific world, when you want in depth details of a phenomenon, you read publications from Nature or Science. When you want to know about general research trends, scientific commentaries and vulgarized information, you read Scientific American. Forbes is the Scientific American of economy and finance.

I said it before and I'll say it again : The only thing proven by Ozanian was that the owners are losing money. Nothing else.

Orange is offline  
Old
11-19-2004, 01:15 PM
  #24
Jaded-Fan
Registered User
 
Jaded-Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,847
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by triggrman
Baseball taxed two teams last season. The Yankees and the Red Sox, right?


Everyone knows that baseballs tax is a joke, it's set at what 160M? While some teams have payrolls at 25M?

That's a little more different than a 15M difference.
How will a 'tax' guarentee only a $15 million difference? And even then, why the hell would I, Joe six pack who lives in the almost 80% of cities who are small to mid-market (and remember the Pens came in above the middle of the pack in attendence the last three years, even this last year when last in the league held their own) continually support a league who has a disparity in talent that can be bought, any disparity at all? A totally fairly structured league would be healthy for the entire league and create much more fan interest. I can not see how anyone can justify a thumb on the scale no matter the size, unless they are merely big time homers from one of those cities with their thumb on the scale.

Jaded-Fan is online now  
Old
11-19-2004, 01:18 PM
  #25
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded-Fan
The Yankees and a number of other teams pay a 'tax' in baseball . . . and baseball has not fixed a damn thing. Revenue sharing is not a solution, take it from one who watched their son of a ***** owner in baseball just take the money and field crap, hell watched most of the owners who got that revenue sharing check do that, while the big market teams could give a damn about paying the tax, and then some. It did not fix the payroll disparity a bit, in fact if anything it has grown worse.

The major difference is that this proposal contains a hard cap at $50 M not allowing for the unlimited spending favoured by the Yankees.

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 04:46 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.