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
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

NHLPA responds to NHL claims of massive losses

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-16-2004, 06:26 PM
  #1
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,397
vCash: 500
NHLPA responds to NHL claims of massive losses

http://nhlpa.com/BobStatement/RWGStatement.asp

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1947934

http://nhlpa.com/Content/Feature.asp?contentId=3400

NHL contends 3 year losses of $569 million in losses over the next 3 seasons.

NHLPA contends 3 year profits of $275.5 million over the next 3 seasons.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 06:35 PM
  #2
Silver
Registered User
 
Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Posts: 5,058
vCash: 500
How do they assume the 3% growth?

Especially for a league that had lower US television ratings for the Stanley Cup Final than a regular MLB game? Coming off a stoppage, there aren't going to be as many butts in seats, especially in the US (with the exception of Minnesota and maybe a few teams in the north east.)

That's going to hit revenues hard, isn't it?

Silver is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 06:44 PM
  #3
X0ssbar
 
X0ssbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ...on a star!
Country: United States
Posts: 13,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
http://nhlpa.com/BobStatement/RWGStatement.asp

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1947934

http://nhlpa.com/Content/Feature.asp?contentId=3400

NHL contends 3 year losses of $569 million in losses over the next 3 seasons.

NHLPA contends 3 year profits of $275.5 million over the next 3 seasons.
All I have to say is that if the NHLPA feels so confident in their projections - why don't they guarantee them? ...I think we all know the answer to that question.


Last edited by X0ssbar: 12-16-2004 at 06:56 PM.
X0ssbar is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 06:44 PM
  #4
Evil Chris
Registered User
 
Evil Chris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 449
vCash: 500
The union is desperate to have the people and the media clearly on their side.
Ain't gonna happen.

Evil Chris is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 06:49 PM
  #5
Feenom
Registered User
 
Feenom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Spliffton
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,712
vCash: 500
Why doesn't Gary Bettman respond by calling a news conference and just ending the the season that was never going to happen anyway? That would be the best way to shut Goodenow up...

Feenom is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 07:07 PM
  #6
jacketracket*
 
jacketracket*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: ... double cream."
Country: Italy
Posts: 10,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Top Shelf
All I have to say is that if the NHLPA feels so confident in their projections - why don't they guarantee them? ...I think we all know the answer to that question.
Those projections do kind of sound hollow, especially in light of the 24% rollback offer from the players.

jacketracket* is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 07:13 PM
  #7
Hasbro
Can He Skate?!
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 35,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacketracket
Those projections do kind of sound hollow, especially in light of the 24% rollback offer from the players.
And the fact that it took the PA THIS long to counter the Levit Report in any substancial fashion.

I'm sure there's some spin in the Leagues figure on losses, but the NHLPAs is bordering on ludicrous.

Owners are greedy and shortsighted, but would they turn down nearly 3 million in profits for a team to try and squezze more out of the players?

Hasbro is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 07:33 PM
  #8
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
This has never been about money, IT'S ABOUT POWER AND CONTROL. Why do you think the owners of the Leafs would stand to lose 15 million a month.

vanlady is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 07:46 PM
  #9
Hasbro
Can He Skate?!
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 35,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
This has never been about money,
It has been for the players

Hasbro is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 08:18 PM
  #10
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 123,871
vCash: 756
They're both not even close. I would put down any money that it will be just around even.

GKJ is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 09:16 PM
  #11
Kaiped Krusader
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Rylan up the Opposition
Posts: 248
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
This has never been about money, IT'S ABOUT POWER AND CONTROL. Why do you think the owners of the Leafs would stand to lose 15 million a month.
How are the Leafs losing $15 million a month?

Kaiped Krusader is offline  
Old
12-17-2004, 12:17 AM
  #12
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,920
vCash: 500
What a joke. The PA complains that the NHL doesn't tell the truth with numbers? Here's a case where Goodenow is flat out lying through his teeth.

He's trying to claim the NHL will maintain the revenue increases of the last few years, when absolutely everything has changed. The expansion funds are gone, there are no more expansion revenues coming in. The newness factor has already started to wear off in the expansion markets, and crowds are down, now based on performance. Almost everybody already has their new building, so that's closed off. The television revenues are massively reduced, with the new NBC deal.

And then immediately after saying "We are not saying that revenues will grow by 9.4%" and they believe that 7.8% is far more accurate, he has the gall to then calculate "corrections" to the NHL proposal using the 9.4%.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
12-17-2004, 07:29 AM
  #13
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
What a joke. The PA complains that the NHL doesn't tell the truth with numbers? Here's a case where Goodenow is flat out lying through his teeth.

He's trying to claim the NHL will maintain the revenue increases of the last few years, when absolutely everything has changed. The expansion funds are gone, there are no more expansion revenues coming in. The newness factor has already started to wear off in the expansion markets, and crowds are down, now based on performance. Almost everybody already has their new building, so that's closed off. The television revenues are massively reduced, with the new NBC deal.

And then immediately after saying "We are not saying that revenues will grow by 9.4%" and they believe that 7.8% is far more accurate, he has the gall to then calculate "corrections" to the NHL proposal using the 9.4%.

The temper tantrums from the PA have started right on cue. Too funny.

The most laughable thing is how the union completely ignores the role this lockout plays in the one time dip in salary inflation and the obvious decrease it will cause in post-lockout revenue.

Hey Bobby boy, do you think the 2% salary inflation last year had something to do with smart organizations getting ready for the cap?

Hey Bobby boy, do you think the NHL is going to get more than 3% revenue growth coming out of a lockout, with no new TV deals, no new arena's coming on-line, and no new expansion fees?

The NHL was being optomistic at 3% growth!

Great job Bob, I'm sure the owners will be fooled into totally ignoring crucial factors affecting your numbers.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
12-17-2004, 08:18 AM
  #14
Puck
Ninja
 
Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Tahiti
Posts: 10,032
vCash: 500
If you want to believe the NHL's numbers, then why can't others believe the PA's numbers?

Sophistry.

Both sides.

Puck is offline  
Old
12-17-2004, 08:45 AM
  #15
Motown Beatdown
Need a slump buster
 
Motown Beatdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indianapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro
And the fact that it took the PA THIS long to counter the Levit Report in any substancial fashion.

This has nothing to do about the Levitt reports it's based on the players proposal that the owners rejected

Motown Beatdown is offline  
Old
12-17-2004, 08:55 AM
  #16
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
 
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,759
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feenom
Why doesn't Gary Bettman respond by calling a news conference and just ending the the season that was never going to happen anyway?
Because that wouldn't be smart at this point.

Vlad The Impaler is offline  
Old
12-17-2004, 09:28 AM
  #17
Egil
Registered User
 
Egil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,827
vCash: 500
This is the beauty of PROJECTIONS. Both sides could be correct. Now, taking each sides projection, I would say the NHL's asusmption of 3% growth is extremely reasonable given the REDUCTION of the TV contract and post lockout problems.

Now, and this is the crux of the whole thing. The PA still hasn't made anything close to their best "free market" offer. There needs to be a consistant, always usable way for owners to reduce the salary of RFA's should their performance warrent it. There needs to be a more sever, lower threshold luxury tax (the PA's offer tax threshold was 65% of league revenue, WAAY, WAAAYY too high). The PA, if they want there current system, truly need to offer meaningful system conscessions, and not the window dressing they did last week. There ideas are good, but, as in the NHL offer, there implementation left much to be desired.

So, after Christmas, I expect the PA to do something along the following lines:

1 - Luxury Tax

- 20% starting at 35 Million
- 50% starting at 40 Million (escelating 10% a year for consecutive years over this amount)
- 100% over 50 Million (escelating 20% a year for consecutive years over this amount

2 - QO

- Either reduced compensation (but still matchin rights) for QO bellow 100% (say 75% QO has max compensation of 2 first round picks instead of 5 for a 100% QO)

or

- QO of owner taking player to arbitration. If the player is underperfoming, then this should reduce there contract substantially

3 - Rookie Cap

- Same as before, except shrink the number of top 15 bonuses to points, goals, GAA and sv%, along with a standard ice time bonus for anything over 15 minutes, 20 minutes and 25 minutes. Also Cap the top 15 bonuses to triple the base amount of $850,000 (so no more than $2.55 million.

4 - Automatic CBA exit clause/ player salary rollback

Either the CBA can be cancelled by the owners or a salary rollback to 56% of revenue if player salaries exceed 65% of revenue at any time during this CBA

Now, until the players make a serious offer based on not having guaranteed linkage (and I understand why they are hesitant for true linkage), we ain't going nowhere. And so far, the PA has had good ideas in its proposals, but nothing that is going to entice the owners to negotiate off of the linkage hill. Something along the lines above may get the owners off that hill and negotiating, but not the minor change offer the PA presented last week.

Egil is offline  
Old
12-17-2004, 09:31 AM
  #18
porknbeans
Registered User
 
porknbeans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,848
vCash: 500
dunno bout the tax

I feel that a tax is a non-starter, the teams dont want to share revenues. They want to cap the teams payroll at the lowest end (30 odd million) to guarantee 70 million dollar profits for the leafs, and even 25 million or more for the Sens.

I still dont understand why people support the owners, they are doing this to get ROI's of a good 20% or more a year... and they say its a bad investment. :mad:

porknbeans is offline  
Old
12-17-2004, 10:23 AM
  #19
ArtG
Registered User
 
ArtG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,794
vCash: 500
WHO CARES HOW MUCH MONEY THEY'VE LOST?!?!

the bottom line is that the league is losing money and no league should be doin that..

ArtG is offline  
Old
12-17-2004, 10:36 AM
  #20
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtG
WHO CARES HOW MUCH MONEY THEY'VE LOST?!?!

the bottom line is that the league is losing money and no league should be doin that..
That depends on why they're losing money. Obviously the Rangers weren't all that concerned that they lost $40 million (which we all know isn't accurate).

Ed Snider saw a chance for the Cup, so he decided that it was better to take that chance and lose $2-3 million instead of make $2-3 million.

Peter Karmonos thought it was a smart idea to move a team to Carolina, and Gary Bettman and the Board of Governors thought it was smart to place expansion teams in Nashville, Miami, and Atlanta.


Everyone of thesewere were well thought out descions by supposedly very bright and successful businessmen. Seems kind of ironic that it's up to the "dumb jocks" to save the educated businessmen.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-17-2004, 11:47 AM
  #21
TexSen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Schaefer..Beer..mmmm
Country: United States
Posts: 1,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Chris
The union is desperate to have the people and the media clearly on their side.
Ain't gonna happen.

What's funny in all this is it reminds me of Ross Perot running for President and taking out a 30 minutes "informercial" slot on the tv and running through chart after chart after chart explaining his plan for economic recovery, tax decreases, deficit cutting etc. etc. etc.

The average American (equivilent to what I would be the average US hockey fan if not NHL fan league-wide) watched for 30 seconds and then by the second chart, eyes glazed over and thoughts wandered to things like, "did I remember to take out the trash?"

I imagine the same is the case here with the NHLPA's charts.

TexSen is offline  
Old
12-17-2004, 11:51 AM
  #22
ArtG
Registered User
 
ArtG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
That depends on why they're losing money. Obviously the Rangers weren't all that concerned that they lost $40 million (which we all know isn't accurate).

Ed Snider saw a chance for the Cup, so he decided that it was better to take that chance and lose $2-3 million instead of make $2-3 million.

Peter Karmonos thought it was a smart idea to move a team to Carolina, and Gary Bettman and the Board of Governors thought it was smart to place expansion teams in Nashville, Miami, and Atlanta.


Everyone of thesewere were well thought out descions by supposedly very bright and successful businessmen. Seems kind of ironic that it's up to the "dumb jocks" to save the educated businessmen.
What's your point?

With a cap in place none of those things would have happened and those owners would have made a hefty profit. I think that's the whole idea.

The players seem to think that it's their god-given right to have everything they have now. Well the bottom line is, the owners have been suffering for far too long and I know nobody cares because they're all filthy rich, faceless ********. One thing should be clear here though: if the players get guaranteed contracts why can't they guarantee the owners a system that will consistently be predictable in terms of revenue?

ArtG is offline  
Old
12-17-2004, 11:56 AM
  #23
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtG
What's your point?

With a cap in place none of those things would have happened and those owners would have made a hefty profit. I think that's the whole idea.

The players seem to think that it's their god-given right to have everything they have now. Well the bottom line is, the owners have been suffering for far too long and I know nobody cares because they're all filthy rich, faceless ********. One thing should be clear here though: if the players get guaranteed contracts why can't they guarantee the owners a system that will consistently be predictable in terms of revenue?

The following wouldn't have happened under a salary cap: Peter Karmonos thought it was a smart idea to move a team to Carolina, and Gary Bettman and the Board of Governors thought it was smart to place expansion teams in Nashville, Miami, and Atlanta.

The owners have been suffering for far too long ???

Of the 80 or so years the the NHL has been in existince, the players may have had things in there favor for about 15-20, and the owners have had about 60-65

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-17-2004, 12:01 PM
  #24
ArtG
Registered User
 
ArtG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
The following wouldn't have happened under a salary cap: Peter Karmonos thought it was a smart idea to move a team to Carolina, and Gary Bettman and the Board of Governors thought it was smart to place expansion teams in Nashville, Miami, and Atlanta.

The owners have been suffering for far too long ???

Of the 80 or so years the the NHL has been in existince, the players may have had things in there favor for about 15-20, and the owners have had about 60-65
At the time everybody thought expansion was a good idea. The league was on the upswing and interest was huge. I admit, looking back it was not a good idea but the league would have been in trouble regardless of these franchises.

Well, I don't want to look too far past the merge of the WHA and NHL as far as owners suffering. However, I can tell you first hand that here in Vancouver I don't ever remember the owners talking about how much money they were making not counting the last 3-4 years. In the late 90s the Canucks were losing $20-30million/season and it looked like they were on the verge of being moved. I think maybe that's why Canadian fans are so firmly behind the league. Especially after Winnipeg and Quebec City..

ArtG is offline  
Old
12-17-2004, 12:08 PM
  #25
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtG
At the time everybody thought expansion was a good idea. The league was on the upswing and interest was huge. I admit, looking back it was not a good idea but the league would have been in trouble regardless of these franchises.

Well, I don't want to look too far past the merge of the WHA and NHL as far as owners suffering. However, I can tell you first hand that here in Vancouver I don't ever remember the owners talking about how much money they were making not counting the last 3-4 years. In the late 90s the Canucks were losing $20-30million/season and it looked like they were on the verge of being moved. I think maybe that's why Canadian fans are so firmly behind the league. Especially after Winnipeg and Quebec City..
Yes look what happens when you have smart management, a team like Vancouver can make huge profits each year, and that with winning just one playoff series over the last 3 seasons.

Smart managements can make this system work.

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 04:01 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.