HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Ouch!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-19-2003, 12:12 PM
  #1
Yanner39
Registered User
 
Yanner39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ottawa ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,334
vCash: 500
Ouch!

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=54418

This to me could be someting that's verifiable from the NHLPA side...I mean, players' salaries are public knowledge, same goes for TV contracts, tickets prices, attendances, etc...If this amount is true, no company can survive if it pays 76% of its revenues to its employees...

Yanner39 is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 12:23 PM
  #2
Hemsky4PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Billeting Ales
Posts: 6,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. van Nostrin
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=54418

This to me could be someting that's verifiable from the NHLPA side...I mean, players' salaries are public knowledge, same goes for TV contracts, tickets prices, attendances, etc...If this amount is true, no company can survive if it pays 76% of its revenues to its employees...
When negotiations begin, the books will be opened and the NHLPA can verify the numbers. The NHLPA's position has always been that players are payed what the market will bear. This has been true for the most part, but pro-sports is a weird market where teams in the same organization compete against each other. This is destructive in nature, the rich teams can drive up salaries and there is no way currently to ensure they are responsible. A cap, or some revenue sharing, must be imposed. Otherwise, teams will fold (this is not imaginary, the Flames, Oilers, Preds, Tampa, Florida, Atlanta, LA, Vancouver, Pittsburg, Buffalo, Ottawa to name the bare minimum) and players will lose jobs. The PA must decide if it wants 30 teams with 22 wealthy players per team, or 20 teams with 22 slightly wealthier players. It seems simple to me, but I'm not a millionaire. I guess us work a day types just don't get it, right Goodenow?

Hemsky4PM is online now  
Old
09-19-2003, 12:54 PM
  #3
Oilers Ent
Registered User
 
Oilers Ent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Burnaby, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,665
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Oilers Ent
If that's the NHLPA position why don't they agree on a percentage that players get paid out each year based on revenues. For example:

if previous year revenue was X the players would have to be paid - say 60% of that. They could then work out pay with some fancy mathematics based on performance and years in the league.

Oilers Ent is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 01:01 PM
  #4
Digger12
Registered User
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Defending the border
Posts: 14,854
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. van Nostrin
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=54418

This to me could be someting that's verifiable from the NHLPA side...I mean, players' salaries are public knowledge, same goes for TV contracts, tickets prices, attendances, etc...If this amount is true, no company can survive if it pays 76% of its revenues to its employees...
You know what just blows me away about the whole issue?

How in the heck does the NHL get away with having a higher average salary than the NFL? Someone brought this up at Oilfans, I didn't believe it until I went and googled it for myself.

This league is screwed. Its whole financial model is out of whack.

And don't think for a second that the NHLPA would cry that much over 5 or 6 teams kicking the bucket...as long as the elite guys get their coin and lots of it, to hell with Joe Journeyman. As far as they're concerned, it's survival of the fittest.

The closer we get, the more pessimistic I feel.

Digger12 is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 01:12 PM
  #5
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemsky4PM
The PA must decide if it wants 30 teams with 22 wealthy players per team, or 20 teams with 22 slightly wealthier players.
Forgive me if this topic has been beaten to death already but I am new here.

Based on all the posturing the Players Association seems to be doing, I am assuming that they quite frankly don't care if some franchises are forced to fold. I am convinced that they will happily sacrifice 1/3 of their association if it means that the remaining 2/3's will make even more money.

What I am wondering is, if you take away 1/3 of the teams will salaries really go up as assumed?

My reasoning suggests that the opposite would happen. Right now the league is quite watered down. With that, you could probably classify 2/3's of the league as journeymen players and with less teams 1/2 of these players will be the ones sacrificed in a 10 team contraction scenario.

Suddenly instead of 30 teams vying for 200 top players making up 1/3 of the league you have 20 teams vying for 200 top players making up 1/2 of the league. The dynamics of supply and demand that we are seeing today totally change. Teams will no longer have to throw 10 mil at a potential star because instead of 1 or 2 guys out there to go after by 3 or 4 teams each year, there may be 3 or 4 guys courted by 2 or 3 teams. The price would in effect go down for some of these players. Would it not?

Then as far as the typical NHL player we are seeing today (basically the middle of the pack player that is the real culprit in driving up salaries) there will be such a surplus of players that the salaries should drop significantly more as a ratio then with the "star" players because there would essentially be 400 guys vying for 200 jobs with very little to seperate 300 of the 400.

For the life of me I can't figure out why the NHLPA wouldn't want to cooperate with some kind of cost certainty with the existing 30 teams. Seems to me both parties would be much more better off.

copperandblue is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 01:23 PM
  #6
IceDragoon
Registered User
 
IceDragoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: South of Sanity
Posts: 3,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue
Forgive me if this topic has been beaten to death already but I am new here.

Based on all the posturing the Players Association seems to be doing, I am assuming that they quite frankly don't care if some franchises are forced to fold. I am convinced that they will happily sacrifice 1/3 of their association if it means that the remaining 2/3's will make even more money.

What I am wondering is, if you take away 1/3 of the teams will salaries really go up as assumed?

My reasoning suggests that the opposite would happen. Right now the league is quite watered down. With that, you could probably classify 2/3's of the league as journeymen players and with less teams 1/2 of these players will be the ones sacrificed in a 10 team contraction scenario.

Suddenly instead of 30 teams vying for 200 top players making up 1/3 of the league you have 20 teams vying for 200 top players making up 1/2 of the league. The dynamics of supply and demand that we are seeing today totally change. Teams will no longer have to throw 10 mil at a potential star because instead of 1 or 2 guys out there to go after by 3 or 4 teams each year, there may be 3 or 4 guys courted by 2 or 3 teams. The price would in effect go down for some of these players. Would it not?

Then as far as the typical NHL player we are seeing today (basically the middle of the pack player that is the real culprit in driving up salaries) there will be such a surplus of players that the salaries should drop significantly more as a ratio then with the "star" players because there would essentially be 400 guys vying for 200 jobs with very little to seperate 300 of the 400.

For the life of me I can't figure out why the NHLPA wouldn't want to cooperate with some kind of cost certainty with the existing 30 teams. Seems to me both parties would be much more better off.
Logical. Fewer pockets = less money.

IceDragoon is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 01:53 PM
  #7
Digger12
Registered User
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Defending the border
Posts: 14,854
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue
For the life of me I can't figure out why the NHLPA wouldn't want to cooperate with some kind of cost certainty with the existing 30 teams. Seems to me both parties would be much more better off.
Why? IMHO, because a large number of those NHLPA members have brains that could pass through the eye of a needle without touching the sides when it comes to financial matters more difficult than a price breakdown of their new Porsche's option list. I swear, some of these guys would start to sweat and get clammy hands trying to do long division. They just want their money flow to continue unabated, and if that means guys like Rem Murray, Shawn Horcoff or Eric Messier are out of jobs then that's what it takes.

Look at the last CBA war in '94, where the players gleefully threw their young guys into the shark tank for their part of the deal. Mind you, it wasn't the players' fault that the owners couldn't stop kneecapping each other long enough to realize that they were giving these first and second contract players far more than they had to, and now look where we are...a league that has an average salary nearing 2 MILLION.

Ugh...I'd better stop talking about this. It's friday, I shouldn't be Mr. Grumpypants.

Digger12 is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 02:14 PM
  #8
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12
Why? IMHO, because a large number of those NHLPA members have brains that could pass through the eye of a needle without touching the sides when it comes to financial matters more difficult than a price breakdown of their new Porsche's option list.

Perhaps, even likely but let's be honest the players opinions aren't being formed by their deep studying of "Finances for Dummies", it's being formed by the brain trust of the NHLPA and their agents.

These guys are in many cases Lawyers and I assume have financial experts advising them. They have the power to influence a Billion dollar industry.

I find it even more shocking that the agents aren't speaking up for the NHLPA to reach an agreement because they have as much at stake as anyone. They could lose 1/3 of their clientele AND see their fees drop at the same time.

Really the only guy that won't be affected is Bob Goodenow and his NHLPA staff. The union will remain wether there are 400 or 600 players.

What am I missing here?

Off topic but I am curious, does anyone know what percentage of a contract goes to a players agent?

copperandblue is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 02:20 PM
  #9
Oiler-Kiwi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Blantyre, Scotland
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 214
vCash: 500
Well in the business I'm in here in Scotland....

if any of our outlets have a wage percentage of more than 25 - 28% then they will generally be losing money.

Oiler-Kiwi is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 03:15 PM
  #10
IceDragoon
Registered User
 
IceDragoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: South of Sanity
Posts: 3,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oiler-Kiwi
if any of our outlets have a wage percentage of more than 25 - 28% then they will generally be losing money.
Right. And that 76% is strictly players' salaries and benefits. All other employees are paid from the remaining 24%.

IceDragoon is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 03:27 PM
  #11
Digger12
Registered User
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Defending the border
Posts: 14,854
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue
Off topic but I am curious, does anyone know what percentage of a contract goes to a players agent?
I'm no expert, but I thought I heard once it was around 10%.

Digger12 is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 03:34 PM
  #12
IceDragoon
Registered User
 
IceDragoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: South of Sanity
Posts: 3,874
vCash: 500
sounds about right

Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12
I'm no expert, but I thought I heard once it was around 10%.
That is a "standard" agent's fee in the entertainment business. Probably applies to hockey agents too.

IceDragoon is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 03:48 PM
  #13
Boondock Saint
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12
You know what just blows me away about the whole issue?

How in the heck does the NHL get away with having a higher average salary than the NFL? Someone brought this up at Oilfans, I didn't believe it until I went and googled it for myself.
Think about it Digger.... NHL rosters have 23 players, while NFL have 53. The NFL cap is set at approx. $75 million dollars, while the proposed NHL cap will have to be about half of that.

Average salary is a pointless number when comparing these two leagues.

Boondock Saint is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 04:00 PM
  #14
Digger12
Registered User
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Defending the border
Posts: 14,854
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boondock Saint
Think about it Digger.... NHL rosters have 23 players, while NFL have 53. The NFL cap is set at approx. $75 million dollars, while the proposed NHL cap will have to be about half of that.

Average salary is a pointless number when comparing these two leagues.
Hmm, that does put a different spin on it. As you can obviously see, I'm not exactly an NFL fanatic. Thanks for that.

Digger12 is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 04:01 PM
  #15
elphy101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: City of Champions
Posts: 1,568
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boondock Saint
Think about it Digger.... NHL rosters have 23 players, while NFL have 53. The NFL cap is set at approx. $75 million dollars, while the proposed NHL cap will have to be about half of that.

Average salary is a pointless number when comparing these two leagues.
however you can look at it another way too.

In the NFL cap is around 76 million. Each team receives 72 Million per year in TV revenue from the National TV contract. Basically, the NFL's TV revenue pays all player salaries. The owners still get take home all the revenue from ticket sales, merchandising, and local TV revenue. You can argue that the NFL has alot fewer home games but then again, average attendance at an NFL game is well over 60 000, so each home game equals about 3-4 NHL games.

In the NHL, each team receives about 3-4 Million worth of TV revenue. With an average payroll getting around 40 million, other revenues are responsible for covering 36 Million worth of player salaries along with all the additional dollars required for running the league.

Another strong comparison is average salary in the NBA. The NBA only has roster of 12 players, and only 5 are paid the big bucks as they are the players mainly on court. Yet the NBA average salary is only slightly higher then that of the NHL.

elphy101 is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 05:18 PM
  #16
IceDragoon
Registered User
 
IceDragoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: South of Sanity
Posts: 3,874
vCash: 500
You guys are good.
Excellent info and perspectives.

(i see you found a toothpick Digger - looks like you've been brushing those pearly whites all day too)

IceDragoon 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 04:50 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.