HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Islanders
Notices

2012-13 CBA Discussion Thread *NHL/NHLPA Please do Something!!*

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-05-2012, 05:04 PM
  #401
JKP
Registered User
 
JKP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantom View Post
I would not see it that way if i was them. They seem to making $ and they should be allowed to spend it to a point. IF you take there $$$ out of the Cap Equation then they cant spend etc. Big market teams dont want a fair Playing field. they want to spend there $ becuase they can afford too.
They'd like it. Because they'd still be able to spend to the max more so that other teams, it just means they put more in their pockets.

What it would really mean is poor teams wouldn't be fiscally destroyed by the disproportionate lift to overall HRR by those top three teams.

JKP is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 05:11 PM
  #402
JKP
Registered User
 
JKP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillD View Post
I agree in principle with this. The bottleneck is defining HRR which leaves pleny of room for substantial interpretation and has major impications on the final pool of revenue to be split up.
No matter how the owner group wants to view their investment and operating costs, the financial model is dependent on the largest expense, player salaries. The players have to accept compensation on what the market will bear, not some percieved value that they themselves create. The ownership has contributed to distortions in pay rates by overpaying. The cap is a good way of regulating salary expense, but both sides have to deal in the marketplace of reasonable value without overpaying.
Long term contracts are not the friend of professional sports. There must be some out clause, buy out if performance doesn't equal expense.
If this is to get settled this year it will take much more effort on the part of both sides to get down to work. Stalling and posturing is not an effectve negotiating tool this time.
It's impossible to overpay in a cap system. The players get 57%. The issue is the 57% is aggregate rev disproportionately skewed by 3 or 4 mega earners that drive up the average for everyone.

You make a good point that LT contracts are not good, but that would be the last thing given up besides guaranteed contracts.

Chuck Finley of the Oakland A's had it right when ball players first wanted UFA. He said make 'em all free agents every year and watch the salaries actually go down when supply and demand works with surplus supply vs annually constrained demand.

JKP is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 05:29 PM
  #403
Mr Wentworth
Arch Duke of Raleigh
 
Mr Wentworth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 4,906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKP View Post
The most simple solution is to base the cap off the average of the middle 24 teams' revenue. Lop off the 3 richest and lop off the three poorest. The Leafs and Rangers skew the league revenue and make it unsustainable for the bulk of teams. The answer is to flatten the curve by chopping off the high and low outliers to compute the cap from. Then teams can spend to the max easier without blowing their brains out.

50-50 split based on the median 24 teams prorated to a 30 team HRR total. Players take a haircut, the the league becomes sustainable as a whole.
I did a little research, and by little I mean one google search and found this:
http://www.ranker.com/list/nhl-teams...2/w1z1k?page=2

So....
The average revenue off all teams is: $102,900,000
51.45 million mid point.
So, if we go 10 above and 10 below:
Cap ceiling of: 61.45 million
and floor of: 41.45 million

Lopping off the top 3 and the bottom three we get: $98,166,666. A change of about 4.5%.
49.08 mid point.
So, if we go 10 above and 10 below:
Cap ceiling of 59.08 million
and floor of 39.08 million

Granted, the starting numbers I used could be all wrong.

Now...as I said, we just have to have rules in place to prevent Snow from all of his bonus tricks to reach the floor and rules to prevent Kovalchuk type of contracts.

Mr Wentworth is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 08:15 PM
  #404
JKP
Registered User
 
JKP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy Ivan View Post
I did a little research, and by little I mean one google search and found this:
http://www.ranker.com/list/nhl-teams...2/w1z1k?page=2

So....
The average revenue off all teams is: $102,900,000
51.45 million mid point.
So, if we go 10 above and 10 below:
Cap ceiling of: 61.45 million
and floor of: 41.45 million

Lopping off the top 3 and the bottom three we get: $98,166,666. A change of about 4.5%.
49.08 mid point.
So, if we go 10 above and 10 below:
Cap ceiling of 59.08 million
and floor of 39.08 million

Granted, the starting numbers I used could be all wrong.

Now...as I said, we just have to have rules in place to prevent Snow from all of his bonus tricks to reach the floor and rules to prevent Kovalchuk type of contracts.
The piece you're missing is you're using the 50-50 split in both models, instead of the current 57-43 split in the current revenue scenario 1:

Using today's 57% in the two scenarios:
scenario 1 (total HRR): 58.7M avg
scenario 2 (24 median HRR): 56.0M avg

So the comparable to today is really:

57-43 split of total HRR : 58.7 avg
50-50 split of median 24 HRR: 49.1 avg

The cap is then that # + a 5% lift then +/-8M for U/L limits

Today's model:
58.7 x 5% = 61.6 = 53.6 to 69.6

My proposed model:
49.1 x 5% = 54.1 = 46.1 to 62.1

Again, players take a haircut to go to 50-50, but it also removes some of the outliers and stabilizes the growth rate somewhat which should put enough drag on salaries to keep the bottom 2/3 of the league mostly in the black.

JKP is offline  
Old
10-08-2012, 06:34 PM
  #405
Homeland Security
Mod Supervisor
#beLIeve
 
Homeland Security's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NY/FL
Country: United States
Posts: 14,175
vCash: 500
:::cricket::: :::cricket:::


Come on NHL, NHLPA, do something!!!!

__________________
Homeland Security is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 11:44 AM
  #406
JetsMetsIsles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10 Min Misconduct View Post
:::cricket::: :::cricket:::


Come on NHL, NHLPA, do something!!!!
Im really hoping we at least get part of a season but at this point I highly doubt it. Heres to hoping we get hockey next year ):

JetsMetsIsles is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 11:55 AM
  #407
Fantom
Registered User
 
Fantom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetsMetsIsles View Post
Im really hoping we at least get part of a season but at this point I highly doubt it. Heres to hoping we get hockey next year ):
I feel you

Fantom is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 12:44 PM
  #408
Riddick
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,319
vCash: 500
That's the problem i have withthis, neither side even seems like they are interested in even discussing anything.

Riddick is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 01:13 PM
  #409
Dan-o16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,744
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Symon Asher View Post
We have a winner


Everyone agrees that that the revenue distribution is skewed. This idea merely alters that to instituting a system where the cap is oriented around a portion of revenue. The attempt to use 'median' is a way to make that portion seem non-arbitrary. But a moment's reflection shows how arbitrary it is. After all, if the previous figure (percent of total revenue) no longer serves the owner's interests, why believe that the owners interests is anything clearly tied to revenue at all? What if 3 more teams were to join the NHL's revenue elite? Will the owners simply define their gain out, next CBA? Why the hell not?

Here's another point: revenue sharing. Suppose the league wants to institute it. If so, the league is going to be penalizing top-earning teams twice: (i) not allowing them to use their large revenues to out-compete for talent, (ii) making them spend the money that they would have spent on talent to give to other teams. (This is why 'luxury tax' systems exist in other leagues: penalize revenue rich teams only if they are going to use their revenues to out-compete for talent.) This idea, by constraining richer teams too much, I think, rules out revenue sharing.

Anyone pushing this idea has no grounds on which to criticize the sides for not getting together. The players would have no reason to come to the table for this and risk looking like they are obstructing the process when they say no. It's a non-starter. This is the sort of thing, if the owners want it, they'll have to break the union's will to achieve.

These aren't proposals. These are NHL business models. There's nothing wrong business models, except that the current topic is the CBA not NHL business models.

It's clear what is going on: the owners believe the players will break eventually. I believe that they are correct, but I also think it will cost the whole year. I also believe that if it will cost the whole year, it will be the final blow to our franchise's hopes to staying in the area. If I didn't think that, I wouldn't care so much. But I don't think that the Islanders just can't afford one more lost year.

Cheers,

Dan-o

Dan-o16 is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 01:43 PM
  #410
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 28,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post



Here's another point: revenue sharing. Suppose the league wants to institute it.



Dan-o
The NHL already has revenue sharing. Has had it for yrs now.

CREW99AW is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 02:17 PM
  #411
redbull
Expect more
 
redbull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post

It's clear what is going on: the owners believe the players will break eventually. I believe that they are correct, but I also think it will cost the whole year. I also believe that if it will cost the whole year, it will be the final blow to our franchise's hopes to staying in the area. If I didn't think that, I wouldn't care so much. But I don't think that the Islanders just can't afford one more lost year.
I don't see the relationship between the lock-out and the NYI on Long Island?

Wang loses money every year (maybe debatable under his cap circumventing scheme of last year) so why would a lost season impact the NYI?

Their sustainability is HELPED if the players cave, which they undoubtedly will at some point, even if it does costs a season. You'd think the owners would try to limit costs in such a way that smaller market teams can compete and be profitable. This benefits the owners, all owners, even the inept & small market owners.

The CBA is a red herring related to the arena situation, which is what will determine the NYI ability to continue playing on Long Island (or in that market - Brooklyn, Queens, whatever).

Mind you, I don't see anyone looking to build an arena in the midst of a lockout, nor do I see Wang trying to sell a franchise either. Would negotiations with other counties or developers still be on-going during a lock-out? Probably.

Sadly, even if the new CBA ensures profitability for the NYI, they'd still need a new arena or a new owner. Wang has been adamant that he's not staying a minute past 2015 without a new arena deal. Something's got to give.

I suspect the new CBA will make franchises more profitable/valuable and hence, marketable, and maybe Wang gets his "out" and sells the team. Bettman will make sure they stay in the NY market - just a matter of finding the right owner and right arena or county to build one.

tick tock.

redbull is offline  
Old
10-09-2012, 02:35 PM
  #412
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 28,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post

I also believe that if it will cost the whole year, it will be the final blow to our franchise's hopes to staying in the area. If I didn't think that, I wouldn't care so much. But I don't think that the Islanders just can't afford one more lost year.

Cheers,

Dan-o
In 2009 Souzzi, changed the arena's sub- lease.SMG was forced to share some of the revenue SMG had been raking in.

According to Forbes and a recent National Post article, Wang has lost $4m, $5.6m and $8.1m in the last 3 seasons. Before that sublease change, he'd claimed losses of $20m per season.


Daly told Botta in late 2010, that the Isles,Devils and Ducks did not get revenue sharing, but all had been pushing to have the rules changed in the next cba.

So, with Wang's arena losses severely declining, a strong possibilty of the cap lowering and the possibility of getting $5m-$15m in revenue sharing, you think this lockout spells the end of the Isles franchise? I couldn't disagree more.

CREW99AW is offline  
Old
10-10-2012, 09:08 AM
  #413
Dan-o16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,744
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbull View Post
The CBA is a red herring related to the arena situation, which is what will determine the NYI ability to continue playing on Long Island (or in that market - Brooklyn, Queens, whatever).
Big picture, people. The public doesn't know or care about 'sustainability' or business models. Owners, by and large, aren't so stupid to think they're going to make a big profit directly from their vanity projects. It's what access and concessions the public gives the owners that really matters.

I do not believe that there's a reason to believe that Wang, or anyone else for that matter, is going to keep the Isles here absent a public subsidy or a sweetheart real estate deal. Every year closer to 2015 where there's no improving Islanders, makes the public will to support the franchise weaker. There are plenty of other areas that actually have the public will, and they will end up out-competing us for a franchise.

I was for the Lighthouse Project, because I liked what Wang was going for. I thought his way of achieving it - getting the Islanders as a foot in the door for a chance at increasing density in Nassau County (and therefore profiting) - was pretty tricksie. Still, I think increasing density is a wonderful thing for our area, and I applaud his efforts. Further, I think it would've given the Islanders a real identity to be part of a cutting-edge community, as opposed the rest of the geriatric Island in decline represented by the shm**** in the town of Hempstead.

That dream is dead. Therefore I believe that public subsidies for a new arena or infrastructure will be required to keep the Islanders in the area. I don't believe the public or politicians will pony up, unless the Islanders are a winning team that has increased its following coming into to 2015. You'd like a year or two of real momentum leading into that decision. This lockout makes that very unlikely.

The idea that going from paltry losses to paltry profits is going to matter to a guy like Wang is pretty amusing. I'm not saying he doesn't care about money, but he can do that sort of thing any day he likes, investing in whatever else he chooses. He is in the hockey business to solidify his legacy on Long Island. And if he can't do that, he's going to treat it as any other investment and take the best opportunity to sell.

Absent a deal with Ratner/Prokhorov, I'm very pessimistic that sale will go to anyone in our area.

Cheers,

Dan-o

Dan-o16 is offline  
Old
10-10-2012, 09:13 AM
  #414
Dan-o16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,744
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbull View Post
I suspect the new CBA will make franchises more profitable/valuable and hence, marketable, and maybe Wang gets his "out" and sells the team. Bettman will make sure they stay in the NY market - just a matter of finding the right owner and right arena or county to build one.
That's really our difference. I don't believe it for a minute.

Cheers,

Dan-o

Dan-o16 is offline  
Old
10-10-2012, 09:30 AM
  #415
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 28,391
vCash: 500
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
I do not believe that there's a reason to believe that Wang, or anyone else for that matter, is going to keep the Isles here absent a public subsidy or a sweetheart real estate deal. Every year closer to 2015 where there's no improving Islanders, makes the public will to support the franchise weaker. There are plenty of other areas that actually have the public will, and they will end up out-competing us for a franchise.

2 yrs ago, Barclay's execs were saying they would not have hockey at Barclay's. It was around that time that when Peltz tried buying the NYI. Was he looking for a sweetheart real estate deal? Keep in mind that several yrs ago he lost out on buying the Senators and after being blown off by Wang, he expressed interest in buying the Devils. I haven't read one article about Peltz looking for sweetheart land deals in any of those potential sales.



Quote:
That dream is dead. Therefore I believe that public subsidies for a new arena or infrastructure will be required to keep the Islanders in the area. I don't believe the public or politicians will pony up, unless the Islanders are a winning team that has increased its following coming into to 2015. You'd like a year or two of real momentum leading into that decision. This lockout makes that very unlikely.
A few months ago, Newsday broke the story of the Shinnecock tribal leaders, who wanted to build the Isles a 20,000 seat arena.It would not have cost the team or County any money and the trible would have been allowed to build a casino on Coliseum land.
The Shinnecock offer fell apart because they are already partners with a casino organization, that objected to their potential Coliseum deal. Before that story broke, how many of us had knowledge of the offer or of the discussion with the tribe?

Quote:
The idea that going from paltry losses to paltry profits is going to matter to a guy like Wang is pretty amusing. I'm not saying he doesn't care about money, but he can do that sort of thing any day he likes, investing in whatever else he chooses. He is in the hockey business to solidify his legacy on Long Island. And if he can't do that, he's going to treat it as any other investment and take the best opportunity to sell.

In 2003, Forbes magazine chided Wang for only counting half of his cable deal in team revenues. The National Post and Forbes is saying that in the last three seasons, Wang's lost $4m, $5.6m and $8.1m. That's without a strong arena lease, without even solid attendance and without any playoff revenue.

I think it's a stretch to say that the cable deal + a stronger arena lease + higher attendance + playoff revenue would =paltry profits.

CREW99AW is offline  
Old
10-10-2012, 09:56 AM
  #416
Dan-o16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,744
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=CREW99AW;54885903]
Quote:


2 yrs ago, Barclay's execs were saying they would not have hockey at Barclay's. It was around that time that when Peltz tried buying the NYI. Was he looking for a sweetheart real estate deal? Keep in mind that several yrs ago he lost out on buying the Senators and after being blown off by Wang, he expressed interest in buying the Devils. I haven't read one article about Peltz looking for sweetheart land deals in any of those potential sales.





A few months ago, Newsday broke the story of the Shinnecock tribal leaders, who wanted to build the Isles a 20,000 seat arena.It would not have cost the team or County any money and the trible would have been allowed to build a casino on Coliseum land.
The Shinnecock offer fell apart because they are already partners with a casino organization, that objected to their potential Coliseum deal. Before that story broke, how many of us had knowledge of the offer or of the discussion with the tribe?




In 2003, Forbes magazine chided Wang for only counting half of his cable deal in team revenues. The National Post and Forbes is saying that in the last three seasons, Wang's lost $4m, $5.6m and $8.1m. That's without a strong arena lease, without even solid attendance and without any playoff revenue.

I think it's a stretch to say that the cable deal + a stronger arena lease + higher attendance + playoff revenue would =paltry profits.
It really has to do with your perception, and what you regard as mere noise. In my view, this is all noise. Can't convince anyone of this, but we'll know for sure by 2015.

Flip that 8.1M from loss to profits - it's still not worth speaking of IMO.

Cheers,

Dan-o

Dan-o16 is offline  
Old
10-10-2012, 10:08 AM
  #417
Veteran journeyman
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riddick View Post
That's the problem i have withthis, neither side even seems like they are interested in even discussing anything.

They didn't even start discussing this until a month before the old deal expired...when they knew there were going to be areas of significant disagreement. That should tell you how serious both sides were about starting the season on time. The lockout was a first resort, not a last resort. I think they decided long before discussions began that it'd go this way and they'd just wait to see who blinks first.

Have they even held discussions since the lockout began? I don't mean getting together and talking about issues everyone agrees on, like player safety...I mean actual meaningful discussions about the core issues at the heart of the lockout.

Veteran journeyman is offline  
Old
10-10-2012, 10:31 AM
  #418
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 28,391
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Dan-o16;54886275]
Quote:
Originally Posted by CREW99AW View Post

It really has to do with your perception, and what you regard as mere noise. In my view, this is all noise. Can't convince anyone of this, but we'll know for sure by 2015.

Flip that 8.1M from loss to profits - it's still not worth speaking of IMO.

Cheers,

Dan-o
Unless someone on the board has insider knowledge about what Barclay's final offer will likely be vs. what Nassau County's final offer will likely be, I don't know how anyone say Wang's profits would be X amount when adding cable deal+ increased attendance+ stronger lease+ playoff revenue.


One thing I notice, is that no one on this board claimed to have a source and predicted the August 1st referendum proposal, the Shinnecock Indian arena proposal, Peltz's bid or Barclay's interest.

Fans just don't have enough info to sit back and say 'this is what's going on and this is what will happen'.

CREW99AW is offline  
Old
10-10-2012, 11:36 AM
  #419
Bert Marshall days
Registered User
 
Bert Marshall days's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CREW99AW View Post
According to Forbes and a recent National Post article, Wang has lost $4m, $5.6m and $8.1m in the last 3 seasons.

So, with Wang's arena losses severely declining,......
Huh? Losses are increasing apparently. This with the lowest payroll and a decent lease.

Bert Marshall days is offline  
Old
10-10-2012, 11:39 AM
  #420
JKP
Registered User
 
JKP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
I do not believe that there's a reason to believe that Wang, or anyone else for that matter, is going to keep the Isles here absent a public subsidy or a sweetheart real estate deal.
This is essentially correct. There will need to be a public subsidy, like there is in almost all pro sports arena situations (Quebec and Edmonton the most recent examples). This is the cost of being a big league town, unfortunately. And owners know if their city won't give them an arena, some other city will. Right or wrong, that's the environment.


Quote:
The idea that going from paltry losses to paltry profits is going to matter to a guy like Wang is pretty amusing. I'm not saying he doesn't care about money, but he can do that sort of thing any day he likes, investing in whatever else he chooses. He is in the hockey business to solidify his legacy on Long Island. And if he can't do that, he's going to treat it as any other investment and take the best opportunity to sell.

Absent a deal with Ratner/Prokhorov, I'm very pessimistic that sale will go to anyone in our area
I really don't think they'll leave the market. The cable deal is very lucrative. The options for profit if the franchise performs well are pretty good.

More importantly, though, the NHL doesn't want to move a franchise from the #1 media market into one of their target markets (QC, S. Ont., Seattle) because they want to expand into those markets at a $200M franchise fee rather than a $60M relo fee. NYI can work quite profitably in the NYC area with a better arena or owned by guys who own an arena.

Gary won't want to squander a $200M franchise fee over Wang's poor stewardship and/or arena issues.

This is why you'll see the NHL get involved to keep the team in the NYC area if Wang wants to sell and the Barclays guys don't bite initially. That said, it makes too much sense for the Barclays guys to NOT buy the team. So that is the resolution I expect if there's no last-minute deal in Nassau.

Regardless, I don't believe the lockout has any impact on this situation what-so-ever. A lockout can't possibly do any more damage to the team than its poor play over the last couple decades has. They are already at the bottom, no where to go but up.

And if the lockout alters the eco model and forces some teams to dump players and/or changes their share of revenue, NYI might actually be able to accelerate things a bit in terms of the product on the ice and create better demand coming out of the stoppage.

JKP is offline  
Old
10-10-2012, 11:42 AM
  #421
Bert Marshall days
Registered User
 
Bert Marshall days's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
Big picture, people. The public doesn't know or care about 'sustainability' or business models. Owners, by and large, aren't so stupid to think they're going to make a big profit directly from their vanity projects. It's what access and concessions the public gives the owners that really matters.

I do not believe that there's a reason to believe that Wang, or anyone else for that matter, is going to keep the Isles here absent a public subsidy or a sweetheart real estate deal. Every year closer to 2015 where there's no improving Islanders, makes the public will to support the franchise weaker. There are plenty of other areas that actually have the public will, and they will end up out-competing us for a franchise.

I was for the Lighthouse Project, because I liked what Wang was going for. I thought his way of achieving it - getting the Islanders as a foot in the door for a chance at increasing density in Nassau County (and therefore profiting) - was pretty tricksie. Still, I think increasing density is a wonderful thing for our area, and I applaud his efforts. Further, I think it would've given the Islanders a real identity to be part of a cutting-edge community, as opposed the rest of the geriatric Island in decline represented by the shm**** in the town of Hempstead.

That dream is dead. Therefore I believe that public subsidies for a new arena or infrastructure will be required to keep the Islanders in the area. I don't believe the public or politicians will pony up, unless the Islanders are a winning team that has increased its following coming into to 2015. You'd like a year or two of real momentum leading into that decision. This lockout makes that very unlikely.

The idea that going from paltry losses to paltry profits is going to matter to a guy like Wang is pretty amusing. I'm not saying he doesn't care about money, but he can do that sort of thing any day he likes, investing in whatever else he chooses. He is in the hockey business to solidify his legacy on Long Island. And if he can't do that, he's going to treat it as any other investment and take the best opportunity to sell.

Absent a deal with Ratner/Prokhorov, I'm very pessimistic that sale will go to anyone in our area.

Cheers,

Dan-o
Bingo. Nobody buys this franchise without an arena in place.

Bert Marshall days is offline  
Old
10-10-2012, 12:08 PM
  #422
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 28,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bert Marshall days View Post
Huh? Losses are increasing apparently. This with the lowest payroll and a decent lease.
No decreasing losses.

Wang's losses pre-2009 were reportedly $20m a yr(according to Wang).

In 2009, County Exec. Souzzi amended the Coliseum sub-lease, forcing SMG to share some of the profits with Wang. Botta wrote that this was a windfall for Wang.

According to Forbes and the National Post article below, Wang's lost $4.5m, $5.6m and $8.1m in the last 3 seasons.

That's a far cry from the $20m he'd previously claimed to have lost each season.

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/...the-bottom-up/

CREW99AW is offline  
Old
10-10-2012, 12:10 PM
  #423
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 28,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bert Marshall days View Post
Bingo. Nobody buys this franchise without an arena in place.
Peltz reportedly wanted to buy the team 18-24 months ago.

With no arena agreement in place.

CREW99AW is offline  
Old
10-10-2012, 12:23 PM
  #424
Dan-o16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,744
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CREW99AW View Post
Peltz reportedly wanted to buy the team 18-24 months ago.

With no arena agreement in place.
Amazing that fans don't know enough to know, yet you know who is really serious.

Noise.

Cheers,

Dan-o

Dan-o16 is offline  
Old
10-10-2012, 12:26 PM
  #425
Bert Marshall days
Registered User
 
Bert Marshall days's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CREW99AW View Post
Peltz reportedly wanted to buy the team 18-24 months ago.

With no arena agreement in place.
Did he buy them?

With no arena agreement in place.

Bert Marshall days 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 12:55 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.