HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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.

Do you think the owners really want to cancel the season?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-11-2004, 05:20 PM
  #26
likea
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 599
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=DementedReality]
Quote:
Originally Posted by likea

lets count who is still on Bettmans side for certain

Penguins
Caps
Canes
Panthers
Sens
Nucks
Kings
Ducks
Lightning
Bruins
Sabres
Preds
Thrashers
Blue Jackets
Sharks
Flames
Oilers
Wild
Blackhawks
Yotes


i strongly question why these teams would not support a 24% reduction in salary + the games beginning over a lengthy and ugly work stoppage. unless of course their mandate all along was something other than what they claimed.

dr
the 24% reduction means absolutely nothing to the majority of these teams because the bigger teams will still set the market and the price of all the FA's therefore they will not be able to sign those FA's

that proposal is trying to bribe the big market owners to put pressure on the smaller market owners

the NHL owners took care of that by needing just 8 votes to shut out a proposal and continue with the lockout

likea is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 05:25 PM
  #27
OlliMackBjugStud
OlliMacBjugStrome
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by likea
the 24% reduction means absolutely nothing to the majority of these teams because the bigger teams will still set the market and the price of all the FA's therefore they will not be able to sign those FA's

that proposal is trying to bribe the big market owners to put pressure on the smaller market owners

the NHL owners took care of that by needing just 8 votes to shut out a proposal and continue with the lockout
i know the mechanics, its been argued ad naseum on this board. im suggesting you under estimate value business people place on real life dollars.

mentioned elsewhere, the owners dont WANT stiffer luxury taxes because they dont want to share revenue. most fans have it backwards. the owners will take a luxury tax so stiff if will never occur, but not a luxury tax that actually results in revenue sharing.

why else would bob goodeneough say that they dont mind "reducing" the taxes if the owners asked. doesnt that seem contradictory to what most would think he would be saying. dont ask me for a link, it was a sound byte on TV on Thursday.

this deal makes each franchise profitable and their value has risen. immediatly.


dr

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
12-11-2004, 05:27 PM
  #28
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 likea
the 24% reduction means absolutely nothing to the majority of these teams because the bigger teams will still set the market and the price of all the FA's therefore they will not be able to sign those FA's

that proposal is trying to bribe the big market owners to put pressure on the smaller market owners
well lets take a look individually at some of the teams mentioned and see if your argument holds up

Penguins - need a new areana period, or they can't survive, cap or no cap
Sens - a top 3 or 4 NHL team
Nucks - most profitable NHL team, can afford any free agent they want
Kings - big market team
Lightning - Stanley Cup Champs
Bruins - big market team
Thrashers - big market team
Flames - Stanley Cup finalist
Blackhawks - Big market team
Yotes - were spending freely this offseason

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 05:34 PM
  #29
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
in fairness, if the owners came to the table with a 70m hard cap offer, id consider that negotiating. if they come back with a 32m cap and other severe changes, then its clearly not negotiating, simply bullying becuase they feel they can.

dr

Glad you figured it out by your second attempt.

Quote:
the owners have not moved one bit off of their "ideolgy" since day 1 and the players have. its clear who is negotiating and who isnt.
The players haven't moved off their ideology one bit. In fact, they just offered the largest bribe in sport history in order to maintain their ideology.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 05:37 PM
  #30
OlliMackBjugStud
OlliMacBjugStrome
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck
The players haven't moved off their ideology one bit. In fact, they just offered the largest bribe in sport history in order to maintain their ideology.
we will have to disagree.. first off, id consider the players offer a concession, not a bribe. second off, their are many changes proposed and open to negotiation from the players. some more effective than others, but changes none the less.

what have the owners tabled that contains something equal to the players offer of 500 million dollars ?

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
12-11-2004, 05:44 PM
  #31
likea
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
i know the mechanics, its been argued ad naseum on this board. im suggesting you under estimate value business people place on real life dollars.

mentioned elsewhere, the owners dont WANT stiffer luxury taxes because they dont want to share revenue. most fans have it backwards. the owners will take a luxury tax so stiff if will never occur, but not a luxury tax that actually results in revenue sharing.

why else would bob goodeneough say that they dont mind "reducing" the taxes if the owners asked. doesnt that seem contradictory to what most would think he would be saying. dont ask me for a link, it was a sound byte on TV on Thursday.

this deal makes each franchise profitable and their value has risen. immediatly.


dr
first, give me a link to where Goodenow states that

second, the owners are the ones the set the revenue sharing plan in the agreement just exchanged....read it

its on NHLPA's website

likea is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 05:48 PM
  #32
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 likea
first, give me a link to where Goodenow states that

second, the owners are the ones the set the revenue sharing plan in the agreement just exchanged....read it

its on NHLPA's website
The NHLPA is absolutely the ones pushing for more revenue sharing, something the NHL has very much been against.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 05:53 PM
  #33
likea
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
well lets take a look individually at some of the teams mentioned and see if your argument holds up

Penguins - need a new areana period, or they can't survive, cap or no cap
Sens - a top 3 or 4 NHL team
Nucks - most profitable NHL team, can afford any free agent they want
Kings - big market team
Lightning - Stanley Cup Champs
Bruins - big market team
Thrashers - big market team
Flames - Stanley Cup finalist
Blackhawks - Big market team
Yotes - were spending freely this offseason
what does your list have to do with anything, they all need cost certainty

lets use your list

The Penguins would have Jagr, Kovy, Lemieux, Kasper, Boughner, Francis, Straka, Lang ect.... if they were able to compete and pay what big money teams could pay....attendence would not be a problem if they had all those players....while they do need a new arena to compete just 4 years ago the Pens made a profit with a 34 million dollar payroll

The Sens will lose all their talent once they become UFA's if the same system is in place

the Nucks were losing money just 5-8 years ago, wait until they have a downturn..and attendence drops, they will be in trouble again...esp. if the US dollar goes up

the Kings have been bleeding money, read the fan report.....it might be in a big markt but that is not a big market team

Lightning are losing less money this year with no hockey then if games were being played, whos side do you think they are on????????????

Flames- stanley cup runner up???? who cares, they still need cost certainty and are def. on Bettmans side

The Yotes spent because no big market teams were there to raise the prices of the players, it was a buyers market, same reason the Pens got Recchi and will sign a few players if a cap is agreed upon....

everyone of the teams you listed are on bettmans side....8 votes is all that is needed to say no thanks to any proposal

when the NHLPA makes a good enough deal for 23 teams to sign off on, then the lockout will be over but 24% means nothing to most of those teams

likea is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 05:54 PM
  #34
likea
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
The NHLPA is absolutely the ones pushing for more revenue sharing, something the NHL has very much been against.

yes, that statement is correct, nothing like suggesting how to spend someone elses money....

but what I stated was correct also, the proposal just exchanged was what the NHL wanted in revenue sharing

likea is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 06:04 PM
  #35
OlliMackBjugStud
OlliMacBjugStrome
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by likea
yes, that statement is correct, nothing like suggesting how to spend someone elses money....

but what I stated was correct also, the proposal just exchanged was what the NHL wanted in revenue sharing
yes that statement is correct, but they only want limited revenue sharing. doesnt the fact the PA's proposal is exactly what the NHL asked for count in favour of the merits of the proposal ? would you have prefered they didnt use what the NHL asked for ?

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
12-11-2004, 06:06 PM
  #36
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 likea
yes, that statement is correct, nothing like suggesting how to spend someone elses money....

but what I stated was correct also, the proposal just exchanged was what the NHL wanted in revenue sharing
Revenue sharing is the key to making thins more "competitive".

All a hard cap of $40 million without significant revenuesharing will do is to make it so the owners of the Leafs, Flyers, Rangers, etc. will pocket millions and millions of dollars in profit.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 06:07 PM
  #37
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 likea
everyone of the teams you listed are on bettmans side....8 votes is all that is needed to say no thanks to any proposal

when the NHLPA makes a good enough deal for 23 teams to sign off on, then the lockout will be over but 24% means nothing to most of those teams
Ididn't say that the teams weren't on Bettman's side, but it is for financial gain and not cometitive edge oin the ice gain.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 06:12 PM
  #38
likea
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Revenue sharing is the key to making thins more "competitive".

All a hard cap of $40 million without significant revenuesharing will do is to make it so the owners of the Leafs, Flyers, Rangers, etc. will pocket millions and millions of dollars in profit.

thats just not true, again, lets take the Pens for example

4 years ago they made a profit with a 34 million dollar payroll

imagine their attendence levels if they could have kept their FA's instead of having to trade them for money once injuries occured

40 million stops big market teams from out prices the small market teams and therefore they have a chnace to keep their own players

likea is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 06:17 PM
  #39
OlliMackBjugStud
OlliMacBjugStrome
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by likea
what does your list have to do with anything, they all need cost certainty

lets use your list

The Penguins would have Jagr, Kovy, Lemieux, Kasper, Boughner, Francis, Straka, Lang ect.... if they were able to compete and pay what big money teams could pay....attendence would not be a problem if they had all those players....while they do need a new arena to compete just 4 years ago the Pens made a profit with a 34 million dollar payroll
i disagree and would go as far as to say that PIT doesnt deserve to be able to keep those players. they dont have NHL revenues, so why should they ? the reason they dont have those kinds of revenues is because they refused to privatly finance their own arena and are now suffering for it. The Canucks on the other hand couldnt get a public arena, so financed it themselves and are very profitable now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by likea
The Sens will lose all their talent once they become UFA's if the same system is in place
completely unfounded. they didnt lose Alfreddson did they ? why cant they keep or trade their players ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by likea
the Nucks were losing money just 5-8 years ago, wait until they have a downturn..and attendence drops, they will be in trouble again...esp. if the US dollar goes up
yes, its true. how ironic the argument that a cap is a must so all teams can sign high end talents, yet the reason teh Canucks were losing on the ice and on the balance sheet was because they were signing high priced players. as soon as they changed that strategy they started winning and making a profit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by likea
the Kings have been bleeding money, read the fan report.....it might be in a big markt but that is not a big market team
ok, so lets shut down LA. the NFL didnt mind, why should the NHL ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by likea
Lightning are losing less money this year with no hockey then if games were being played, whos side do you think they are on????????????
a 24% reduction is just fine for them. they have the momentum of a stanley cup to cash in on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by likea
Flames- stanley cup runner up???? who cares, they still need cost certainty and are def. on Bettmans side
CGY is an NHL market, they would be fools to prefer the war and casualty to get a cap, when they can take a 24% reduction and a season to play.

Quote:
Originally Posted by likea
The Yotes spent because no big market teams were there to raise the prices of the players, it was a buyers market, same reason the Pens got Recchi and will sign a few players if a cap is agreed upon....
1) so PHX should be raring to start the season as well positioned as they ever had to be succesful. 2) i thought it was the big markets who were going to go on a signing spree ? if the changes now allows PIT to also play in that field, isnt this what YOU WANT ?

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
12-11-2004, 06:21 PM
  #40
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by likea
what does your list have to do with anything, they all need cost certainty

lets use your list

The Sens will lose all their talent once they become UFA's if the same system is in place
You mean like Daniel Alfredsson?

Quote:
the Nucks were losing money just 5-8 years ago, wait until they have a downturn..and attendence drops, they will be in trouble again...esp. if the US dollar goes up
They also did stupid things like outbid the Rangers for Messier when they were losing money. If attendance drops it will only be because the team stinks and if that happens, the payroll will drop as well.

Quote:
the Kings have been bleeding money, read the fan report.....it might be in a big markt but that is not a big market team
They also had big money deals in place for players who couldn't play. That made a playoff team a playoff pretender. The teams got lots of good young players in their system now and could be a major factor in the Western Conference really soon.

Quote:
Lightning are losing less money this year with no hockey then if games were being played, whos side do you think they are on????????????
Garbage. The Lightning would probably pack one of the biggest rinks in the NHL this season on the basis of winning the Cup. They're watching one of the best teams in the league take a 24% paycut.

Quote:
Flames- stanley cup runner up???? who cares, they still need cost certainty and are def. on Bettmans side
They didn't need cost certainty, they just needed a GM with a brain. They've got that now and if the Flames team is as good as it was last year, they could become the next Vancouver.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 06:27 PM
  #41
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 DementedReality
i disagree and would go as far as to say that PIT doesnt deserve to be able to keep those players. they dont have NHL revenues, so why should they ? the reason they dont have those kinds of revenues is because they refused to privatly finance their own arena and are now suffering for it. The Canucks on the other hand couldnt get a public arena, so financed it themselves and are very profitable now.

hmmm spending money to make more money, what a novel concept ... maybe someone should clue the Pens, Hawks and Bruins into this novel concept ...

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 07:20 PM
  #42
Lionel Hutz
Registered User
 
Lionel Hutz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Locking the Lounge??
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,981
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=DementedReality]
Quote:
Originally Posted by likea

lets count who is still on Bettmans side for certain

[COLOR=Red]Penguins

i strongly question why these teams would not support a 24% reduction in salary + the games beginning over a lengthy and ugly work stoppage. unless of course their mandate all along was something other than what they claimed.

dr
There was an article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette yesterday that analyzed the proposal from the Pens perspective. The 24% roll back would sav them @$3 mil on the 16 players currently under contract. Then they would have to proceed to sign their other players, many of whom will be looking for more money.

A 24% rollback would not even help the Pens much this year, let alone in the future where it is obvious that there is nothing on the table to ensure long term financial stability.

The Pens would clearly be against this.

Lionel Hutz is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 08:19 PM
  #43
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
well, if i wanted to negotiate to buy your car from you and was offering only my Metallica music collection. YOu would rightly come back and tell me you will never accept my music collection in trade. If I then came back with a proposal that still included my music collection, could you say i was negotiating ?

the owners have not moved one bit off of their "ideolgy" since day 1 and the players have. its clear who is negotiating and who isnt.
Interesting example. But you drew the wrong conclusion.

The seller of the car equates to the owners. They are saying "we must get paid cash, or were not interested." The buyer is the NHLPA, saying "here's my tape collection." When told no, they come back with "ok, here's my tape collection, *and* a black velvet painting of Elvis."

The players are presenting things of value, but not what the owners want. Why should they have to accept an offer they don't want?

PecaFan is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 08:26 PM
  #44
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
The Canucks on the other hand couldnt get a public arena, so financed it themselves and are very profitable now.
Note, the company that spent the hundreds of millions needed to build the arena didn't profit at all from it. Drove them info debt so much that they ended up having to sell the team and building for peanuts. Arthur Griffiths still regrets the whole thing.

But hey, worked out great for the *buyer*.

So yeah, if Pittsburgh's current owners want to make a lot of money for somebody else, then by all means, build their own building.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
12-11-2004, 10:50 PM
  #45
OlliMackBjugStud
OlliMacBjugStrome
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Note, the company that spent the hundreds of millions needed to build the arena didn't profit at all from it. Drove them info debt so much that they ended up having to sell the team and building for peanuts. Arthur Griffiths still regrets the whole thing.

But hey, worked out great for the *buyer*.

So yeah, if Pittsburgh's current owners want to make a lot of money for somebody else, then by all means, build their own building.
ok fair point on the Canucks. however, it only supports the note that the current owner doesnt need to support shutting down NHL hockey.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
12-11-2004, 10:51 PM
  #46
OlliMackBjugStud
OlliMacBjugStrome
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Interesting example. But you drew the wrong conclusion.

The seller of the car equates to the owners. They are saying "we must get paid cash, or were not interested." The buyer is the NHLPA, saying "here's my tape collection." When told no, they come back with "ok, here's my tape collection, *and* a black velvet painting of Elvis."

The players are presenting things of value, but not what the owners want. Why should they have to accept an offer they don't want?
well they dont have to. jsut like the owners dont need to put anything on teh table that the players will consider. unless of course they want the current members of the NHLPA on the ice. hey if they want you and me, they can offer a much different deal, but if they want Sakic, Iginla and Redden, then i guess its a good idea to get on the same page as them.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
12-11-2004, 11:19 PM
  #47
Hockey_Nut99
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
well they dont have to. jsut like the owners dont need to put anything on teh table that the players will consider. unless of course they want the current members of the NHLPA on the ice. hey if they want you and me, they can offer a much different deal, but if they want Sakic, Iginla and Redden, then i guess its a good idea to get on the same page as them.

dr
Guys like Sakic, Iginla, and Redden were made rich men b/c of these owners. They would be going to school or doing something for a lot less pay without these owners. The owners could walk away from their franchises and it wouldn't effect their pockets one bit. Yes the players are the products but they need to be a little grateful and do more to get on the same page of the owners.


Last edited by Hockey_Nut99: 12-12-2004 at 12:14 AM.
 
Old
12-12-2004, 12:08 AM
  #48
OlliMackBjugStud
OlliMacBjugStrome
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey_Nut99
Guys like Sakic, Iginla, and Redden were made rich men b/c of these owners. They would be going to school or doing something for a lot less pay without these owners. The owners could walk away from their franchises and it wouldn't effect their pockets one bit. Yes the players are the products but they need to be a little grateful and do more to get on the same page of the owners.

They say the average Joe doesn't understand when it comes to millions..Not to brag(just a personal point of view) but our family business brings in over $200 000 a year and we couldn't be more happy. These guys play a kids game for gods sake...
whats your point about brining in 200,000. first off, in business thats not much money. second off, whats your role ? i dunno, i thought maybe you make this point to "prove" how much you know ?

anyhow, yes they were made rich, but not by the owners. by you and me and the rest of the fans. the owners should be just as grateful and the players dont need to apologize to anyone for what they are paid. i guess in your family business, you either dont have non family staff OR you expect they should act grateful to you their paycheck. maybe thats not quite what you meant, because its quite disrespectful.

if the current owners walked away from their teams, there would be a lineup for their markets.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is online now  
Old
12-12-2004, 12:36 AM
  #49
Hockey_Nut99
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
whats your point about brining in 200,000. first off, in business thats not much money. second off, whats your role ? i dunno, i thought maybe you make this point to "prove" how much you know ?

anyhow, yes they were made rich, but not by the owners. by you and me and the rest of the fans. the owners should be just as grateful and the players dont need to apologize to anyone for what they are paid. i guess in your family business, you either dont have non family staff OR you expect they should act grateful to you their paycheck. maybe thats not quite what you meant, because its quite disrespectful.

if the current owners walked away from their teams, there would be a lineup for their markets.

dr
My point didn't come across well..I was talking about how they should be grateful and how we make that much off 1 little business and how happy we are with even that much but I realize the lockout is all business...I can see how these guys don't think like we do because they probably compare themselves to other athletes. In other sports as well...Millions to them is like hundreds of thousands to us

 
Old
12-12-2004, 12:43 AM
  #50
quat
intheDanRusseljungle
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 8,919
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
I don't think they want to cancel the season, but they are willing to do so to get what they feel will solve the financial problems the league has been under.

quat 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 05:10 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.