HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Boston Bruins
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012 CBA Discussion III (Lockout Talk)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-29-2012, 01:36 AM
  #201
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
AOF - before I get to this thread I want to respond to this post to me last thread that I haven't had a chance to yet. Responses in bold



You should care less then because taxpayers aren't funding the players. Cities may be funding the owners because it is profitable for them to do so.
i hate how arrogant i sometimes sound in some of my posts... after 10 plus years here some of the posters have taken dozens of personal shots at me and it sometimes gets my fighting spirit up. i think i might owe you an apology cause my last reply to you had a few words in it that i cringe to read now.

but as for a good natured debate.. i enjoy those as much as anyone. you clearly have an agenda and you defend your points well and i believe you argue with honesty and show passion. so lets do this again.

first... how are franchises going up in value? if we take away the taxpayer handouts are they going up in value? if we take away the new arenas are they going up in value? i did a study the other day and posted it... and of the bottom 10 teams none have shown any significant improvement in value over the last 3 years.

the revenue% has been going up... the profits from the new uniform deal.. the new arenas... expansion... has dried up. there is a new tv deal but its nominal in the grand scheme of things.

i will agree value went up for franchises if you go back far enough... if you factor in things like one time arena rebuilds... or ongoing taxpayer contributions. I just am much more skeptical then you that the bottom 10 teams continue to increase in revenue now that the cba has sucked so much over the past 7 years.

your leopold comment... is tricky... they dont release the real numbers to us, so we are all guessing what they are. you obviously want to say that he lies if he says he lost money. when he sold nashville.. the new owners brought in included hucksters and crooks. the ownership has been unstable ever since. im not sure a whole bunch of qualified buyers were fighting for the team when he sold it.

again i come back to the fact... that when someone sells they never do a press conference and say 'holy crap i made so much money.. im going to buy another team immediately.' instead they go away... never come back... if it was so proffitable why? why wouldnt they come back? thats the thing i dont get.. if they are so damn greedy and making so much money... why do they sell and never come back?

as to your comment about owning other sports teams... if we break it down we see some minority owners stepped up... we see that some owners from other leagues have bought hockey teams. but lets stick to oranges and apples and ask how many owners of bottom 10-15 markets ever buy another team? AGAIN for the record i am not trying to claim there arent some teams that do make money. I believe toronto makes money. I believe new york makes money. If i go down the list i can find 10 or so teams i feel make money. I mean, make money whether they make the playoffs or not... make money every year... make money despite this cba... make money without taxpayer handouts... then i feel there are around 10 teams or so that have NO CHANCE to make money under any circumstances under this current cba. And there might be around 10 teams that do or dont make money depending on how well they play. Its just not good enough... something has to change.

on the topic of it being the owners fault for spending too much... no we dont agree. i blame the fans for that. i have seen the fans turn against the owners every single time an owner tries to hold the line. owners MUST spend whatever the limits are... or the fans will revolt.

i dont know if i understand your comment that 126 million is alot of profit? is it? is that a great profit off 3.3 billion in revenues? isnt that like less then 1% of revenues become profit? is there any business on the face of the planet that would consider that a good profit? personally i heard the owners made more money... around 250 million is a number i heard. That is still less then 1%. I dont think theres a business on the planet that wouldnt be cutting costs if they only turned a 1% profit on revenues earned. I guess thats why i cant get how people like you keep trying to claim greed on the part of the owners. you toss out these numbers yourself... and try to equate them as greed? i will agree that there is ego involved... and stupidity... but greed? it just doesnt feel like greed to me.

i think cities do profit from having sports teams around... and universities... and roads... and hospitals... and police... and many other things. They probably benefit from having strip clubs and drug dealers too... i mean... if we want to take this to its logical end. But im not sure i support tax dollars going to sports teams or strip clubs. Let sports teams and strip clubs and meat packing plants and supermarkets all pay their own way... and give the tax dollars to the hospitals and schools ok? I mean recently edmonton paid a couple reality tv starts 28 000 dollars or something like that to come here for the weekend and twitter about it. I FREAKED!!!! Dont give my tax dollars to entertaiment please. if entertainment cant earn enough to support itself... we dont need it. Hockey teams can earn enough. But they must learn to live within their means. If players were averaging 1.5 mill instead of 2.5 mill and each team had 20 mill less in expenses then there would be no reason any taxpayer dollars had to go to the teams. 1.5 mill is still TONS of money. Let the taxpayers support hospitals and schools please... not millionares and billionares or walmart or strip clubs or meat packing plants. They all should stand on their own two feet

as for your final comment... players get 57% of all hrr under the old cba. so... when a building is built by taxpayers and increases revenues... guess who gets 57% of those revenues? you are very very very pro player. i get that... but you seem unwilling to admit your side has any warts. I seem anti player... i seem pro owner... but my side has tons of warts... its just the players are the problem that needs to be fixed. the owners problems will continue cause they are... unsolvable. sports will always be about billionares with egos trying to make fans happy and gms trying to keep their jobs.

what has to be fixed... is force these egos and desperate owners to live within their means... and the cba is the way to do this... and the taxpayers are the ones that ultimately should benefit {although so far... no one is saying that except me and a few other lonely voices in the wind}

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 01:49 AM
  #202
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
Here is Suter's quote,

"It's disappointing. If you can't afford to (sign contracts) then you shouldn't do it. (Owner Craig Leipold) signed us to contracts. At the time he said everything was fine. Yeah, it's disappointing. A couple months before, everything is fine, and now they want to take money out of our contracts that we already signed."

I don't think that is bad faith at all. He was told things were fine and now the owner is crying poor and doesn't want to live up to the contract. Leipold is worth $2.8B and you would rather he get 13% or $26M instead of that going to Parise and Suter. Sorry I just don't see how that is right. There is a reason the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It is because the rich keep screwing everyone over every chance they get and the poor take it. The players have a chance to stand up for what is right. If more people did that or had that chance everyone (except the 1% people) would be better off.
i guess i need to get a chance to quiz suter before i can be certain what he is trying to say... or what was said to him in contract negotiations.

i think though realistically... suter and parise wanted to come home. detroit and philly say they offered the same money or more that minnesota did. parise and suter played the market... and jacked up the price even though they said they wanted to come home.

incredible preasure was put on minnesota to bring their hometown boys home... parise and suter played the media... and jacked every dollar possible out of these offers.

minnesota did what they felt they had to... to match the offers that were on the table...and keep their fans happy. everyone involved new a new cba was about to be negotiated. everyone involved heard lots of rumors that the owners wanted a better deal.

parise and suter didnt say lets go to the khl... or sweden... so we can avoid the risk of a new cba being negotiated... instead, they played one nhl team against another against another... they used the system to their advantage. now leopold might be using the opporunity to renegotiate the cba to his advantage? but he gets the same advantage all 29 other owners do. No more... no less.

Leopold might not even be arguing that he personally cant afford the costs. Maybe if he champions lower costs... he might be talking about other franchises? Does anyone hear him say that he personally cant afford to pay suter? i never heard that... but if he did say that then i guess its bad right?

leopold stepped up when the two top ufa wanted to come home.. and gave them fair market value. he did what all fans want their owners to do. and now he is fighting for a cba that makes sense and stops the bottom 10 teams in the nhl from being unstable. if i was a fan of one of those 10 teams... id be happy about that too.

i hope jacobs and snider are also fighting for the poor markets and not themselves... maybe thats why they are fighting?

in the nfl... the rich owners did fight for the small markets. And that worked out great. btw in the nfl players dont have guaranteed salaries. maybe the players in the nhl dont have as much to complain about as they think they do causse nfl owners can cut a players entire salary anytime they want on a case by case basis.

in the nhl maybe the players get cut when a new cba comes along... but from one cba to another guys like scott gomez and wade redden and company make every single penny they sign for.

its only when a new cba gets signed that owners get any relief at all. the rest of the time players can suck as much as they want and still get paid everything

thats... pretty damn sweet i guess if you are a player.

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:03 AM
  #203
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
you are completely avoiding the REALITY that teams that spend less... have less chance of winning.

I'm not avoiding anything. Sure they have less chance to win but spending more isn't a guarantee of winning. 7 playoff teams spent less than Columbus this year. What you are avoiding is this shouldn't be put on the players. Winning and competitiveness has nothing to do with the players making too much. What you are talking about is the spread in the salary cap. They could change those rules without taking anything from players. There are many solutions that don't take from the players.

Snip...

I doubt you will see this, because you are clearly determined to DAMN the owners and support the players without much objectivity. I personally by no means say that the owners are in the 'right' here. I just call it down the middle as I see it. Owning sports teams is a 'public trust' where you are reliant on the fan's emotional support in order to stay in business. Sports teams are selling dreams to fans. They dont feed us... they dont educate us... they dont keep us safe from danger or let us live in nicer homes. The ONLY VALUE of a sports team is to provide us some entertainment. Teams that dont win... provide alot less entertainment. This is simple human nature. Owners MUST ice 'winning' teams {or at least be percieved as trying to do so} or the team is doomed to failure. Even teams in great markets like Boston and Chicago cant remain profitable if they go years between making the playoffs. Detroit was a crap organization before Illitch took over and got them back into the playoffs.

You aren't calling it down the middle at all or are seeing it all wrong. You are wrong on teams losing their shirts. You are wrong on owners not wanting to own franchises, that sports teams are a losing investment, that many teams are going bankrupt. If you look at the facts you will see that only a couple owners truly lose money and that is their fault.

I have plenty of objectivity and can see both sides of the equation. I can see however that it is 100% the owners fault that any lose money and there are plenty of ways to make sure everyone makes money if that is what they want. I don't feel they should if they don't run their franchise right. It would be great if everything anyone did in life guaranteed a good outcome but that isn't the way things work.

If you go back to the last couple of pages of the previous CBA thread you will see my full proposal that gives the owners $246M to $286M more per year over 10 years depending on growth rate. It proposes 50/50 while still making the players whole on the other 13%. That is with paying the shortfall. That is more than 2 times what the losing owners lost this year. $8.2M more per owner per year. That really isn't enough for them? They are billionaires who will be making $8.2M more per year and are holding firm over about $2M because they don't want to honor current contracts. You can't see how that is wrong? The players are the only ones giving in every CBA and the owners lock them out every time a new one comes up.


snip... (I don't feel like arguing every point)


its just the cold hard facts that you simply cant carry forward with 10-12 teams constantly up for sale and scrambling for a new SUCKER to step in and take the millions and millions of annual loses in those markets. Something has to give... and player salaries is the OBVIOUS fix
Wrong again. 10-12 teams aren't constantly up for sale. Only 10 to 12 owners have owned their teams less than 10 years. These are hobbies for a lot of owners. If an owner wants to buy for a couple years and sell for a profit or a loss what is wrong with that?

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:04 AM
  #204
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
You keep bringing up taxes in conjunction with the CBA

The City of Glendale is the only government that has put in even a dime of taxpayers money that has a net effect on the CBA

They put in $25 million to cover losses for a guarantee that the team would stay in Glendale for that season. Every Coyotes game generated $1.2 million to the Glendale economy (outside of the hockey itself). Not to mention the jobs it created and the taxes generated by those businesses that depend on the game to stay in business. Would you spend $100 to make $175 net effect ?

The tax dollars they used for new arenas are also revenue generator's for the cities that choose to do so, but not every city/level of government get involved. Plenty of the arena's are built with private dollars. But they have nothing to do with the CBA so I fail to see why you keep bringing up these "massive" amounts of tax dollars.

The Canadiens pay $8 million in land taxes alone every year not to mention all the other taxes they pay. The Air Canada Center was built with private $$ and it is estimated that every Leaf home game generates over $4 million per home game for the Toronto economy ( again doesn't include the game itself).

So without the Glendale example because I am well aware of it, please tell me what these "massive" amounts of tax payers money are that you keep bringing up that have any effect on the CBA. Because no other government that I am aware of is propping up NHL franchises. In fact the Canadian government flat out rejected all Canadian teams asking for financial help when the dollar was low.

It's a serious question, because I really want to be informed and would like to know. Will anxiously await.

Thanks
found your question... i dont have time to track down every single team to find out every single dollar given to them... i dont know where to get the info... i have seen numbers all over the place... they are always different... i dont know who got those numbers or how accurate they are

ultimately all i know is that everyone agrees... cities give money to teams.

some of it... comes from casinos like pittsburg. some of it comes from land deals like ottawa or tampa. some of it comes from tax breaks. some of it comes from handing over arena management deals.

in pheonix its a straight out payment. in edmonton, the owner is now asking for a 6 million subsidy on top of the management deal for the arena on top of the money to build the arena... on top of land deals...

in new york there was requests for a new arena... a casino... rezoning opportunities for land... and other stuff...

i dont have the facts and figures cause no one opens their books to me.. and i dont know where the numbers come from that get quoted. but no one disputes the fact that all this crap goes on and on and on and on and on...

some of it might not be directly inclued in hrr... i have never read throuh the list of whats in hrr and whats not in hrr. but alot of it is included.

so i guess... you are kind of very much on the side of the owners... is that right? im not sure... i cant keep track of what everyone elses position is here. but if you feel i am slamming the owners for taking taxpayer dollars then i plead guilty. i dont want taxpayer dollars going to these owners again and agian and again... and i sure as hell dont want them propping up the values of the franchises and the hrr numbers to give the players artificial raises.

i realize that cities benefit from sports teams. but i said in my last post that we benefit from strip clubs and meat packing plants and universities too. cities are supposed to benefit from any business that is in town. i dont support money to museums or to opera houses or theatre... i dont support it to hockey teams or football teams or pro golfers... i dont support it to walmart or ford or gm either.

i guess i dont want my taxdollars going to support business or entertainment. leave the money in my wallet and i can decide if i want a ticket to the hockey game or a ford truck or a trip to the opera. and busines/entertaiment sources that are actually worth while will be supported... and those that arent will go the way of the dinosaur.

hockey will survive in markets where it belongs. too bad for fans in glendale... but its ok for fans in markets where it belongs. no taxpayer dollars needed

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:44 AM
  #205
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
Wrong again. 10-12 teams aren't constantly up for sale. Only 10 to 12 owners have owned their teams less than 10 years. These are hobbies for a lot of owners. If an owner wants to buy for a couple years and sell for a profit or a loss what is wrong with that?
lets take a look at this...

so ill start with buffalo. i see they sold in 2011

new jersey sold in 2004... and has been fighing bank ruptcy and missing payments since... trying to get minority owners

dallas stars sold in 2011

atlanta trashers not only sold... but moved to winnipeg

pheonix obviously had problems...

Nashvilles new ownership took over in 2007... Leopold took over Minnesota. Leopold has made Minnesota stable. But Nashville has continued to change their ownership mix. I am not sure they are steady even today.

i guess this is 7 franchises that have been sold recently and 6 of which we arent sure are out of the works yet.

moving on to vancouver their last sale was in 2006 i guess. from all accounts they are profitable these days? Toronto sold last year... they seem to be very profitable. And montreal sold in 2009

i guess im up to 10 teams that sold... 6 of which are still unstable?

moving on... we go to the two florida teams. the panthers get sold in 2009 and seem a bit shaky. tampa gets sold in 2010... maybe the new ownership is stable?

does that take us to 12 teams sold in the last 10 years? lets continue...

ottawa sold in 2003 and seems stable... edmonton sold in 2008. Calgarys ownership group occasasionally changes names but seems stable. I guess these franchises all got ok when the dollar went to par. but if the dollar ever was to drop to 1980 levels again then that will change in a heart beat.

i guess we are up to 14 teams sold in the last 10 years now

Pittsburg has been with lemieux for awhile.. of course he got the team from bankruptcy and defaulting on money owed to him. he then leveraged a casino deal.. and still he tried to sell the team to ballsillie anyhow. right now they got crosby... when hes gone the team will again be for sale

st lous just sold...

and islanders are moving... had a few questionable owners in recent years...

anaheim sold in 2005... from all reports the new owners are worth over 2 bill and can handle the loses.

i think we are up to 16 teams sold in the last 10 years now

and san jose i guess was in 2002... 10 years ago. they reported loses of 17 mill last year i guess. they have changed alot of their investors over the years i guess. i guess maybe they are stable

forgive me if i miss anyone.... was pressed for time and this research is hard to do.

i stand by my origional assessment of the situation. when you factor in all the rumors of sales that get denied... the sales that fall through that get talked about again and again...

i stand by my assessment.

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 03:24 AM
  #206
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
snip.. no problem - thanks for the apology.


first... how are franchises going up in value? if we take away the taxpayer handouts are they going up in value? if we take away the new arenas are they going up in value? i did a study the other day and posted it... and of the bottom 10 teams none have shown any significant improvement in value over the last 3 years.

I would say because very few are truly losing money to start with. Taxpayers aren't paying much if anything. Why would you take away new arenas out of the equation? Well you only looked at 3 years of which there has been a major recession. Over the CBA only 4 have lost value. Value for the 30 teams went up an average of $228M per year. That is with many teams that are run poorly.

snip...


your leopold comment... is tricky... they dont release the real numbers to us, so we are all guessing what they are. you obviously want to say that he lies if he says he lost money. when he sold nashville.. the new owners brought in included hucksters and crooks. the ownership has been unstable ever since. im not sure a whole bunch of qualified buyers were fighting for the team when he sold it.

I'm not saying he lies but what someone shows as losses doesn't mean they are losing money. You do get that right? If he was losing $70M how would the franchise value go up $113M? Why would he buy another franchise?

again i come back to the fact... that when someone sells they never do a press conference and say 'holy crap i made so much money.. im going to buy another team immediately.' instead they go away... never come back... if it was so proffitable why? why wouldnt they come back? thats the thing i dont get.. if they are so damn greedy and making so much money... why do they sell and never come back?

You say that losing owners don't run out to buy another franchise but you are wrong. Leipold did, others do. Sometimes they move to a different sport. There aren't many up for sale each year as you have stated. It is hard to purchase a franchise because there are usually multiple bidders. Other times it is because the owner lost money on other businesses. There are many reasons why an owner wouldn't own another franchise but the truth is that most actually own, have owned or want to own multiple franchises.

snip...

but lets stick to oranges and apples and ask how many owners of bottom 10-15 markets ever buy another team?

I'm not going to research every owner to find out but there are many who do and there are many who don't for one reason or another. As stated above Leipold is one who says he lost $70M and immediately bought another team. He now claims he is losing money again, and gives out not 1 but 2 of the largest, longest contracts spending $13M more than last year. You tell me if he is has been really losing money when adding franchise value. I highly doubt it.

snip...

Its just not good enough... something has to change.

What has to change is owners run their franchise within their spending limits. The cap max and floor are close enough where most teams can compete every year if they run things right.

on the topic of it being the owners fault for spending too much... no we dont agree. i blame the fans for that. i have seen the fans turn against the owners every single time an owner tries to hold the line. owners MUST spend whatever the limits are... or the fans will revolt.

Well at least you realize it isn't the players fault. So why are we taking from the players? Again? And taking every other concession as well?

i dont know if i understand your comment that 126 million is alot of profit? is it? is that a great profit off 3.3 billion in revenues? isnt that like less then 1% of revenues become profit? is there any business on the face of the planet that would consider that a good profit? personally i heard the owners made more money... around 250 million is a number i heard. That is still less then 1%.

$246 is what the profitable owners made - $120 that the losing owners lost. $126M is a lot of profit. It is only 3.8% of revenue but that is with owners running the business poorly. Then when you add in franchise values the total profit was $493M. That is really a lot of profit. The players don't get any of that.

I dont think theres a business on the planet that wouldnt be cutting costs if they only turned a 1% profit on revenues earned. I guess thats why i cant get how people like you keep trying to claim greed on the part of the owners. you toss out these numbers yourself... and try to equate them as greed? i will agree that there is ego involved... and stupidity... but greed? it just doesnt feel like greed to me.

3.8% not 1% and over 12% when you include franchise values. A business is always trying to increase margins but they are very thin in most businesses. The profits including franchise value are huge. The players new proposal even with a real make whole provision was going to give the owners more than enough to cover any losses and extending out 10 or more years would have given the owners double what the losing teams lost. How is that not greedy to still be arguing over $2M dollars when they are making $8M more per year over the next 10 years and going up every year once the make whole provision is done? The billionaires are making a lot more while taking from the millionaires. Again the players are the only ones giving anything up - again.

snip..

as for your final comment... players get 57% of all hrr under the old cba. so... when a building is built by taxpayers and increases revenues... guess who gets 57% of those revenues? you are very very very pro player. i get that... but you seem unwilling to admit your side has any warts. I seem anti player... i seem pro owner... but my side has tons of warts... its just the players are the problem that needs to be fixed. the owners problems will continue cause they are... unsolvable. sports will always be about billionares with egos trying to make fans happy and gms trying to keep their jobs.

Again the taxpayers pay little if anything. Where do the players have warts? They are the employee and product. They ask for contracts and owners give it to them. Replace them with other talent and see what the owners make. What are they gaining in these "negotiations"? How are any of the owners problems the players fault? If the owners were truly losing money and it was through no fault of their own then I would be on their side. I'm pro player because none of this is their fault, they are the little guy in this negotiation and they are the only ones giving anything up. I have proposed 50/50 but the owners should honor current contracts. Even doing that they will make much more than they are currently making.

what has to be fixed... is force these egos and desperate owners to live within their means... and the cba is the way to do this... and the taxpayers are the ones that ultimately should benefit {although so far... no one is saying that except me and a few other lonely voices in the wind}
There isn't much broken about the current CBA. The owners are the ones that screwed it up. A salary cap is only there for parity not for making profit. The owners screwed that up because the higher spending teams still have advantages when competing for players. Owners will still overspend their budgets, and the owners aren't willing to share more profits. They only want to take from the players.

If you want something where everyone is guaranteed money and to be competitive then why not make every team spend the same amount. Every player starts at minimum salary through the year and then split all profits equally among owners and players. Players get a share in the franchise value gain. So the players profits of $1.65B & the owners profits of $126M = ~$2.4M for each player and owner. Every player & owner gets an additional ~$500k in franchise value gain. Every team gets to bid equally on every player, every player and owner makes about $3M/year.

That doesn't work because while everyone making the same amount seems "fair" there is such a disparity in talent and ownership that they should make different amounts and no one should be guaranteed any profit. So we are back to the current system. All it needs is tweaking not a huge cut to the players and current contracts should be honored.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 04:01 AM
  #207
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
lets take a look at this...

snip...

i stand by my assessment.
Your assessment was:

"its just the cold hard facts that you simply cant carry forward with 10-12 teams constantly up for sale and scrambling for a new SUCKER to step in and take the millions and millions of annual loses in those markets."

I show 15 teams in 10 years. Leipold sold one to buy another. The Molson family reacquired the Canadiens. The family has owned them for most of the last 60 years.

MLSE still owns the Maple Leafs though Rogers & Bell bought a majority stake into MLSE. St Louis didn't sell they just had their president leave.

Only 1.5 per year not 10 -12 constantly up for sale. Some (most?) sold for profits, others because the owner ran them into the ground. Dallas and New Jersey both carry more debt than the franchise is worth. That isn't a way to run any profitable business. Others were in markets that didn't support the team. Not all sales of teams are bad or because owners can't make money.

Again how is any of this the players fault? Why should the owners make the players take all the cuts?

If you can't run your business right, overspend, carry too much debt, etc. then you don't deserve to make money. Most businesses in the real world fail.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 04:38 AM
  #208
Orrthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 816
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
Your assessment was:

"its just the cold hard facts that you simply cant carry forward with 10-12 teams constantly up for sale and scrambling for a new SUCKER to step in and take the millions and millions of annual loses in those markets."

I show 15 teams in 10 years. Leipold sold one to buy another. The Molson family reacquired the Canadiens. The family has owned them for most of the last 60 years.

MLSE still owns the Maple Leafs though Rogers & Bell bought a majority stake into MLSE. St Louis didn't sell they just had their president leave.

Only 1.5 per year not 10 -12 constantly up for sale. Some (most?) sold for profits, others because the owner ran them into the ground. Dallas and New Jersey both carry more debt than the franchise is worth. That isn't a way to run any profitable business. Others were in markets that didn't support the team. Not all sales of teams are bad or because owners can't make money.

Again how is any of this the players fault? Why should the owners make the players take all the cuts?

If you can't run your business right, overspend, carry too much debt, etc. then you don't deserve to make money. Most businesses in the real world fail.
http://blues.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=631301

Orrthebest is online now  
Old
10-29-2012, 06:18 AM
  #209
ODAAT
Registered User
 
ODAAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,516
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
Wrong again. 10-12 teams aren't constantly up for sale. Only 10 to 12 owners have owned their teams less than 10 years. These are hobbies for a lot of owners. If an owner wants to buy for a couple years and sell for a profit or a loss what is wrong with that?
You understand of course that just because an owner hasn't made it public knowledge doesn't mean he/she or they aren't or wouldn't be happy to get rid of their sinking venture??

Our restaurant was just sold to another restauranteur, the owner hadn't put it on the market publicly, a simple conversation occurred between he and the new owner and he thought now was the time to sell.

Bob Mccown was speaking with a guest from I believe a Sports Business Mag/Company, name escapes me, he stated, without hesitation, 10 teams absolutely hemorraghing money, another 10 barely survive and rely on either a hopeful playoff spot to generate $$ and/or $$ from other teams to survive, then there's 10 that we all know of who do well.

Of the 10 in desperate states, he said, any of them would wash their hands in a heartbeat of the mess they have financially with their teams (Darren Rovell maybe??)

ODAAT is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 08:42 AM
  #210
Artemis
Took the red pill
 
Artemis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: United States
Posts: 18,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ODAAT View Post
You understand of course that just because an owner hasn't made it public knowledge doesn't mean he/she or they aren't or wouldn't be happy to get rid of their sinking venture??

Our restaurant was just sold to another restauranteur, the owner hadn't put it on the market publicly, a simple conversation occurred between he and the new owner and he thought now was the time to sell.

Bob Mccown was speaking with a guest from I believe a Sports Business Mag/Company, name escapes me, he stated, without hesitation, 10 teams absolutely hemorraghing money, another 10 barely survive and rely on either a hopeful playoff spot to generate $$ and/or $$ from other teams to survive, then there's 10 that we all know of who do well.

Of the 10 in desperate states, he said, any of them would wash their hands in a heartbeat of the mess they have financially with their teams (Darren Rovell maybe??)
This just reiterates, then, the need for increased profit-sharing if the NHL wants to have a viable league. They can't just keep cutting player salaries because that's treating the symptoms, not the disease. They get this CBA, they'll be back again in a few years with the same old song and dance.

Artemis is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 08:46 AM
  #211
ODAAT
Registered User
 
ODAAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,516
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
This just reiterates, then, the need for increased profit-sharing if the NHL wants to have a viable league. They can't just keep cutting player salaries because that's treating the symptoms, not the disease. They get this CBA, they'll be back again in a few years with the same old song and dance.
No argument from me

ODAAT is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 09:37 AM
  #212
patty59
***************
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
This just reiterates, then, the need for increased profit-sharing if the NHL wants to have a viable league. They can't just keep cutting player salaries because that's treating the symptoms, not the disease. They get this CBA, they'll be back again in a few years with the same old song and dance.
They need both, the salary cap has almost doubled in the past eight years and most other expenses have increased 50%. Salaries is the only expense they can actually control, so it figures they would go after it.

patty59 is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 09:50 AM
  #213
bp13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 11,440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
This just reiterates, then, the need for increased profit-sharing if the NHL wants to have a viable league. They can't just keep cutting player salaries because that's treating the symptoms, not the disease. They get this CBA, they'll be back again in a few years with the same old song and dance.
I agree with what you're saying, but would like to add this point, and this is why I think Bettman needs to be replaced...

if the financial situation for these owners is so dire, and the public perception is that each expiring CBA brings the owners to the table looking for more and more, and ends with players ceding more and more, then why is it never enough? Wasn't the cap supposed to solve these issues? Wasn't the revenue sharing/split between players and owners supposed to solve this? Why are the owners running the risk of crying wolf?

bp13 is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 10:02 AM
  #214
patty59
***************
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,043
vCash: 500
Do people really think that if the teams losing money weren't that the owners wouldn't still be looking to chip away at the players share of HRR?

These things take time, they got their cap, now the want a fair split. Hopefully after they get to 50-50 the only problems with the CBA will be the window dressing crap like per diems and incidentals.

patty59 is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 10:30 AM
  #215
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 14,961
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patty59 View Post
Do people really think that if the teams losing money weren't that the owners wouldn't still be looking to chip away at the players share of HRR?

These things take time, they got their cap, now the want a fair split. Hopefully after they get to 50-50 the only problems with the CBA will be the window dressing crap like per diems and incidentals.
They went from 75 to 57 in the last deal, they would go from 57 to 50 in this one. Why wouldn't they go for 45 in the next?

JMiller is online now  
Old
10-29-2012, 10:33 AM
  #216
patty59
***************
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
They went from 75 to 57 in the last deal, they would go from 57 to 50 in this one. Why wouldn't they go for 45 in the next?
They probably will, that's why I said 'hopefully'.

patty59 is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 10:43 AM
  #217
bp13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 11,440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patty59 View Post
They probably will, that's why I said 'hopefully'.
Sure but if you were a player, how "hopeful" would you be?

I'm on board with your line of thinking that the dial still needs to move a bit more towards the owners. That said, if I was a player, I'd be reluctant. I might eventually approve such a move, but I'd fight it out of principal to ensure they don't go too far. To ensure that they don't think it'll be easy every time they come looking for more. Perhaps that's all we are seeing here.

bp13 is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 11:38 AM
  #218
patty59
***************
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bp13 View Post
Sure but if you were a player, how "hopeful" would you be?

I'm on board with your line of thinking that the dial still needs to move a bit more towards the owners. That said, if I was a player, I'd be reluctant. I might eventually approve such a move, but I'd fight it out of principal to ensure they don't go too far. To ensure that they don't think it'll be easy every time they come looking for more. Perhaps that's all we are seeing here.
The players can fight the good fight all they want, end of the day they're going to lose out the worst.

If I was a player I'd pad my bank account with the millions they are paying me and be grateful I I get to play a sport for a living. I'd also be happy that my place of business isn't shutting down.

patty59 is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 11:47 AM
  #219
Morris Wanchuk
.......
 
Morris Wanchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: War Memorial Arena
Country: United States
Posts: 15,022
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Morris Wanchuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by bp13 View Post
Sure but if you were a player, how "hopeful" would you be?

I'm on board with your line of thinking that the dial still needs to move a bit more towards the owners. That said, if I was a player, I'd be reluctant. I might eventually approve such a move, but I'd fight it out of principal to ensure they don't go too far. To ensure that they don't think it'll be easy every time they come looking for more. Perhaps that's all we are seeing here.
IMO, it would all depend on what length of contract I was on.

If I was on a 1 or 2 year deal.. give me a 12% roll back and lets get this thing started.

These guys only have a small window to make money. This isn't your bus driver union which people are in for 40+ years. Yea this solidarity and other BS is nice, but at the end of the day, I wonder how a guy like Iginla feels who could have lost over $10mil due to labor disputes when it is all said and done.

Why? Because he was represented by union boss' who were in it for themselves and wanted to be remembered at this or that. Goodenough was ready to sit out 2 years until his membership revolted. 2 years? Thats driven by nothing but ego.

Morris Wanchuk is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 12:06 PM
  #220
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 14,961
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morris Wanchuk View Post
IMO, it would all depend on what length of contract I was on.

If I was on a 1 or 2 year deal.. give me a 12% roll back and lets get this thing started.

These guys only have a small window to make money. This isn't your bus driver union which people are in for 40+ years. Yea this solidarity and other BS is nice, but at the end of the day, I wonder how a guy like Iginla feels who could have lost over $10mil due to labor disputes when it is all said and done.

Why? Because he was represented by union boss' who were in it for themselves and wanted to be remembered at this or that. Goodenough was ready to sit out 2 years until his membership revolted. 2 years? Thats driven by nothing but ego.
It brings up an interesting imbalance among players, but also between players and ownership. Owners can go into these negotiations with the advantage of focusing on, and benefiting from, long term goals. What is a two year lockout if it sets you up for 40 years of increased profits? Players might look at long term goals, but the benefits from them will be paid out to players not even in the league yet.

IMO the owners had this year's strategy laid out before the last deal was signed.


Last edited by JMiller: 10-29-2012 at 12:12 PM.
JMiller is online now  
Old
10-29-2012, 01:01 PM
  #221
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orrthebest View Post
My bad. I thought I had searched for St Louis Blues sale first.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 01:54 PM
  #222
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ODAAT View Post
You understand of course that just because an owner hasn't made it public knowledge doesn't mean he/she or they aren't or wouldn't be happy to get rid of their sinking venture??

Our restaurant was just sold to another restauranteur, the owner hadn't put it on the market publicly, a simple conversation occurred between he and the new owner and he thought now was the time to sell.

Bob Mccown was speaking with a guest from I believe a Sports Business Mag/Company, name escapes me, he stated, without hesitation, 10 teams absolutely hemorraghing money, another 10 barely survive and rely on either a hopeful playoff spot to generate $$ and/or $$ from other teams to survive, then there's 10 that we all know of who do well.

Of the 10 in desperate states, he said, any of them would wash their hands in a heartbeat of the mess they have financially with their teams (Darren Rovell maybe??)
So you think 10 -12 teams are constantly for sale which is what I was responding to?
And that is all because of losses directly related to hockey?
That they had no control over?
And it was the players fault?
And that the only solution is to take about $305M out of the players? (All losing owners losses were $120M while running their teams poorly)
Without honoring current contracts?

The NHL made $126M this year. Combined with franchise value gain that grows to $493M. They have a new TV contract for more revenue. Moving the Islanders to a new arena will help. Getting Phoenix an owner or moving them will help. Expansion which I'm sure they will do will help. Probably $500M to be split up among the owners.

They want another $305M/year.
$246M more than the $493M in cash and franchise value gain isn't enough for them? $8.2M more per owner/year - while the players take less money.
They really can't honor the current contracts? Average of $59.2M per year.

You would rather take from the millionaires to pay more to billionaires who already make 2x what the players do?
Their proposal will make their average 6x what average player makes in cash and 12x including franchise value.

I want to know why the players 50/50 offer isn't enough for people?
What are the players gaining in the negotiation to give up these concessions?
Why is sentiment on the owners side?

Read my proposal in the last CBA thread on posts 915 and 916. Tell me why that won't work. I have other ideas but I wanted to work off each sides offers.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:03 PM
  #223
BlackNgold 84
Known Kellyist
 
BlackNgold 84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 2,486
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
So you think 10 -12 teams are constantly for sale which is what I was responding to?
And that is all because of losses directly related to hockey?
That they had no control over?
And it was the players fault?
And that the only solution is to take about $305M out of the players? (All losing owners losses were $120M while running their teams poorly)
Without honoring current contracts?

The NHL made $126M this year. Combined with franchise value gain that grows to $493M. They have a new TV contract for more revenue. Moving the Islanders to a new arena will help. Getting Phoenix an owner or moving them will help. Expansion which I'm sure they will do will help. Probably $500M to be split up among the owners.

They want another $305M/year.
$246M more than the $493M in cash and franchise value gain isn't enough for them? $8.2M more per owner/year - while the players take less money.
They really can't honor the current contracts? Average of $59.2M per year.

You would rather take from the millionaires to pay more to billionaires who already make 2x what the players do?
Their proposal will make their average 6x what average player makes in cash and 12x including franchise value.

I want to know why the players 50/50 offer isn't enough for people?
What are the players gaining in the negotiation to give up these concessions?
Why is sentiment on the owners side?

Read my proposal in the last CBA thread on posts 915 and 916. Tell me why that won't work. I have other ideas but I wanted to work off each sides offers.
I think most people are for the players theres a few people for the owners who have made valid points in my opinion. But everything you have mentioned/brought up in this post is never going to sway peoples minds. You start pointing out the millions of dollars the owners are still going to make and the pro-ownership crowd will come back with a "well they got 57 % of the hrr so the 50-50 is still good for the players since they make so much money" or they bring up "well 18 teams didn't make money last year" and I don't think these people are going to change their mind. Just like the people who are pro-players won't change their minds on how greedy the owners are. I think the owners won the last cba, and got pretty much everything they wanted but still couldn't differentiate between revenues and profits. And also I think with owners losing money shouldn't fall on the players shoulders. The thought of "they should be happy to be millionaires" theory sounds awesome to us regular folk, but when you're bosses make double your money and then cry poor mouth and want more from you it says a lot about where this sport is, and will be going in the future.

BlackNgold 84 is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:22 PM
  #224
ODAAT
Registered User
 
ODAAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,516
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
So you think 10 -12 teams are constantly for sale which is what I was responding to?
And that is all because of losses directly related to hockey?
That they had no control over?
And it was the players fault?
And that the only solution is to take about $305M out of the players? (All losing owners losses were $120M while running their teams poorly)
Without honoring current contracts?

The NHL made $126M this year. Combined with franchise value gain that grows to $493M. They have a new TV contract for more revenue. Moving the Islanders to a new arena will help. Getting Phoenix an owner or moving them will help. Expansion which I'm sure they will do will help. Probably $500M to be split up among the owners.

They want another $305M/year.
$246M more than the $493M in cash and franchise value gain isn't enough for them? $8.2M more per owner/year - while the players take less money.
They really can't honor the current contracts? Average of $59.2M per year.

You would rather take from the millionaires to pay more to billionaires who already make 2x what the players do?
Their proposal will make their average 6x what average player makes in cash and 12x including franchise value.

I want to know why the players 50/50 offer isn't enough for people?
What are the players gaining in the negotiation to give up these concessions?
Why is sentiment on the owners side?

Read my proposal in the last CBA thread on posts 915 and 916. Tell me why that won't work. I have other ideas but I wanted to work off each sides offers.
Wouldn`t at all be shocked if the owners of at least 10 teams would fly out to see any potential owner with pen and paper in hand to get rid of their mess yes

ODAAT is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 02:59 PM
  #225
Orrthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 816
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
This just reiterates, then, the need for increased profit-sharing if the NHL wants to have a viable league. They can't just keep cutting player salaries because that's treating the symptoms, not the disease. They get this CBA, they'll be back again in a few years with the same old song and dance.
While I agree that a better revenue sharing is needed, players salaries are also too high. The NHL only made a profit of 177 million on 7 billion dollar businesses. That profit level is much to low to attract investors. I find it ironic that people support the players and complain about the quality of the NHL owners, when the reason the NHL has poor quality owners is the lack of a reasonable expectation of profit.

Orrthebest is online now  
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 07:28 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.