HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Whose side were you on, whose side are you on now

View Poll Results: Whose side?
Started Player side, still Player side 70 23.57%
Started Owner side, still Owner side 159 53.54%
Started Player side, now Owner side 59 19.87%
Started Owner side, now Player side 9 3.03%
Voters: 297. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-27-2012, 12:26 AM
  #76
Timmy
Registered User
 
Timmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
It so easy for internet millionaires to give away millions of dollars when they don't actually make it.
The same can be applied to people saying that the owners shouldn't have a problem not making any money.

Taking an extreme example, let's say that an owner in a pre-cap world is willing to incur a $40 million dollar annual loss in order to pay for a winning team. In doing so, he's establishing the market value of third and fourth line players, comparables to whom teams owned by people not willing to incur $40 million losses can't sustain.

Nobody puts a gun to the head of an owner's GM to sign a player, but if one (and it only takes one) owner's GM overpays for some scrub, the benchmark rises across the board, so that the other 29 owners, absent a gun to their head, must make a decision to re-sign a player at the newly-established fair market value, or let him walk.

This establishes an intraleague farm system whereby the "prudent" teams have nothing but crap, their fans wail at the loss of a favourite player, playoff revenue is lost, and they spiral into a bottom feeder. During a lockout, this owner is considered the ideal that others should strive for, but as soon as the puck drops he's considered a sad-sack example of an owner who isn't willing to spend to make the team better for the fans.

Before the last CBA, player costs were 74% of gross revenues. Without the cap, it is likely that this percentage would be higher today.

It is very easy to say that fans shouldn't be so quick to give away players' money, but it makes it hard to argue that they should be willing to make owners operate at a loss as well.

Timmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2012, 12:28 AM
  #77
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 28,681
vCash: 50
Even though I am mostly siding with the owners, it doesn't mean I don't think any of the stink isn't on them.

Their first proposal was very poorly thought out. It was too extreme and basically NHL has had to spend almost three months getting goodwill back. If the league had been much more moderate in their first proposal, pressure on Fehr had been much larger in August-September. Now he was off the hook for two months because he could point to how unfair the leagues first offer was. Bettman dropped the ball on that one.

Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2012, 12:41 AM
  #78
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,252
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
Nobody puts a gun to the head of an owner's GM to sign a player, but if one (and it only takes one) owner's GM overpays for some scrub, the benchmark rises across the board, so that the other 29 owners, absent a gun to their head, must make a decision to re-sign a player at the newly-established fair market value, or let him walk.
..indeed. Precedents set. So Agent X representing player Y compares his clients stats, playing time, age etc to player Z who just signed an obscene contract with Craig Leipold or whomever, and away we go. A pebble in a pond; ripples. Obviously the Nashvilles', Carolinas' & Floridas' cant afford to match or if they do, better hope & pray Player Z exceeds all expectations because if their not winning more than their losing at home, big problem. Haves & have nots, the latter put into an almost impossible if not completely untenable position as a result. One size doesnt fit all Timmy, and until these issues are addressed, we'll be right back here again in 2017-18, 2024.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2012, 01:57 AM
  #79
MarkhamNHL
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
..indeed. Precedents set. So Agent X representing player Y compares his clients stats, playing time, age etc to player Z who just signed an obscene contract with Craig Leipold or whomever, and away we go. A pebble in a pond; ripples. Obviously the Nashvilles', Carolinas' & Floridas' cant afford to match or if they do, better hope & pray Player Z exceeds all expectations because if their not winning more than their losing at home, big problem. Haves & have nots, the latter put into an almost impossible if not completely untenable position as a result. One size doesnt fit all Timmy, and until these issues are addressed, we'll be right back here again in 2017-18, 2024.
lots of players take less (hometown discount) to stay with their teams so i'd say that evens it out

MarkhamNHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2012, 02:02 AM
  #80
KaraLupin
카라
 
KaraLupin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,673
vCash: 500
Started on Owners side, still on Owners side.

The owners put up their own money to make all of this happen, and they want to see a profit, or else it's not worth doing.

The players get to play a sport they love, for money that should goto people like Policemen and Firefighters instead. Take the ****in salary hit.

KaraLupin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2012, 02:42 AM
  #81
MarkhamNHL
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaraLupin View Post
Started on Owners side, still on Owners side.

The owners put up their own money to make all of this happen, and they want to see a profit, or else it's not worth doing.

The players get to play a sport they love, for money that should goto people like Policemen and Firefighters instead. Take the ****in salary hit.
not all the owners care about profits.. some intentionally lose money you know... and then there's phoenix who loses everyones money....

MarkhamNHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2012, 03:17 AM
  #82
Cory Trevor
Smokes, Let's go
 
Cory Trevor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Brockton
Country: United States
Posts: 7,277
vCash: 500
Don't know what to say here. I've been on the owners side maybe out of my fear of repeat from last decade. That said, I really haven't changed my opinion. Contracts have been on a steady rise for the entire league for the past 7years, profits are up(granted, not everywhere but in general), the league has been consistently growing in exposure since the last lockout, and the fans are more passionate and willing tofollow there team than ever. It seems to me a fifty fifty profit split looks pretty fair on paper. I loved that the NBA was locked out last year. It showed that collective bargaining is a problem across the board and made the NHL look good. Three lockouts in two decades and games lost for a third season??? The only people that are deprived are the fans and those that work for hockey teams

Cory Trevor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2012, 05:44 AM
  #83
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 21,652
vCash: 500
Remember the first offer made by the owners was ridiculous, I remember them going to the extreme and most people from fans to journalists to players were outraged. It was the first time in a while where I saw people siding so firmly with the players. I mean they had shows about this very subject on how this time people were siding with the players compared to 2004. The talk was "owners are saying they lose money yet they made 3.5 billions".

...And then the NHL made the 50/50 split offer with a lot on concessions, players refused, and you saw a complete reversal of people's opinions.

I know the players are fighting for the legitimacy of the deals they signed but the business is in bad shape. Teams are losing 30 millions per year. And i'm not just talking about Phoenix and others like them. Hell I even think the whole thing need even more fixing than what the owners are proposing.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2012, 06:14 AM
  #84
canuckster19
Former CDC Mod
 
canuckster19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Gothenburg Sweden
Country: Canada
Posts: 723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CN_paladin View Post
When you quadruple the total revenues from 800M to 3.2B in matter of years, most owners would gladly pay you that much.
What a weak argument, what exactly has Bettman done to grow revenue where it is mostly coming from, I'm guessing the owners can thank the Canadian government for remaining strong and having a hard line towards banks so they did't get screwed like everyone else did. The fact is strong markets have remained strong and weak ones are weak.

canuckster19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2012, 07:42 AM
  #85
Lacaar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkhamNHL View Post
lots of players take less (hometown discount) to stay with their teams so i'd say that evens it out
That's crap. Hometown discounts are rare. Perhaps 2% of all contracts and the discount is at best 5%.

Lacaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2012, 07:47 AM
  #86
Lacaar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkhamNHL View Post
not all the owners care about profits.. some intentionally lose money you know... and then there's phoenix who loses everyones money....
They don't intentionally lose money.
I know you're probably referring to San Jose.

They don't intentionally lose money. They just don't mind losing money to remain competitive.

I'm pretty sure if you went up to the San Jose owner and said. "Hey you want to remain competitive and break even?"

You telling me they're gonna say omg no! I want to lose money!

They might say not at the cost of losing a season. Problem is.. find 20 or so more teams like that. We'll find out soon I guess.

Lacaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2012, 07:50 AM
  #87
ottawah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,529
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by analog4ndy View Post
It seems to me a fifty fifty profit split looks pretty fair on paper.
Now that would be horrendous t the players. That drops their share down almost 50%.

Last years cap, ~1.9B. Pay the players zilch, that leaves overall profit at 2B. Split it in half, thats 1B to the players. About a 45% pay cut .....

ottawah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2012, 08:19 AM
  #88
MarkhamNHL
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacaar View Post
They don't intentionally lose money.
I know you're probably referring to San Jose.

They don't intentionally lose money. They just don't mind losing money to remain competitive.

I'm pretty sure if you went up to the San Jose owner and said. "Hey you want to remain competitive and break even?"

You telling me they're gonna say omg no! I want to lose money!

They might say not at the cost of losing a season. Problem is.. find 20 or so more teams like that. We'll find out soon I guess.
yes some don't care they willingly spend the money knowing the will lose money
buffalo this past season is another example....

if you are over the cap floor and lose money... those loses should be excluded from league loses... they are by choice

MarkhamNHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2012, 08:25 AM
  #89
KingBogo
Admitted Homer
 
KingBogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 4,528
vCash: 1345
Started moderately on the owners side now I'm strongly on the owners side. And this gets stronger and stronger every time a player speaks out about how they are poor victims.

KingBogo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2012, 08:43 AM
  #90
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,717
vCash: 500
I started on the players side, and I'm still on the players side.

This lockout is unnecessary in every respect. The league is more stable than its ever been, Atlanta's relocation to Winnipeg notwithstanding. Revenues were growing at a record pace, a new TV contract was signed and was poised to go into effect this month, attendance is up across the board. The fact that the "We need money, we're poor" rhetoric has been used only sparingly by the NHL speaks volumes. Everything has been about "We're paying the players too much" over "We're struggling."

A fair deal IMO would be 50/50, existing contracts honoured, increased (not necessarily expanded) revenue sharing, existing contract rules with the exception of a provision to deal with retirement contracts, and a public promise by Bettman that they will not return to this situation in five/six/seven years from now.

Sadly, even if the owners did come back in 2018 or 2019 and asked for a 40% share (which history suggest they will do), most supporting them now will be supporting them then.

htpwn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2012, 09:13 AM
  #91
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
PensFanSince1989's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,716
vCash: 500
Woops, meant to select started owners, still owners. Though both do deserve some blame I think the owners proposals will lead to a better league.

PensFanSince1989 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2012, 09:15 AM
  #92
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
PensFanSince1989's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
I started on the players side, and I'm still on the players side.

This lockout is unnecessary in every respect. The league is more stable than its ever been, Atlanta's relocation to Winnipeg notwithstanding. Revenues were growing at a record pace, a new TV contract was signed and was poised to go into effect this month, attendance is up across the board. The fact that the "We need money, we're poor" rhetoric has been used only sparingly by the NHL speaks volumes. Everything has been about "We're paying the players too much" over "We're struggling."

A fair deal IMO would be 50/50, existing contracts honoured, increased (not necessarily expanded) revenue sharing, existing contract rules with the exception of a provision to deal with retirement contracts, and a public promise by Bettman that they will not return to this situation in five/six/seven years from now.

Sadly, even if the owners did come back in 2018 or 2019 and asked for a 40% share (which history suggest they will do), most supporting them now will be supporting them then.
50-50 and honouring contracts (in the way the NHLPA wants them honoured) is impossible, except for maybe about 5 years or maybe even longer down the road. NHL isn't agreeing to that.

And if the players are concerned about the owners asking for even more when this CBA runs out, stop making the shorter proposals.

PensFanSince1989 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2012, 09:49 AM
  #93
MarkhamNHL
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PensFanSince1989 View Post
50-50 and honouring contracts (in the way the NHLPA wants them honoured) is impossible, except for maybe about 5 years or maybe even longer down the road. NHL isn't agreeing to that.

And if the players are concerned about the owners asking for even more when this CBA runs out, stop making the shorter proposals.
and do you really think any side in their right mind would not make sure there is an opt out clause ?

MarkhamNHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2012, 01:02 PM
  #94
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceintheSpace* View Post
No buts.

If you were in their shoes, youd be doing the same thing. Admit it.

Im not defending, because im not pro-owner or pro-player. I separated business and sport a long time ago, but its foolish to think none of us would be acting the same as the players, and I dont believe anyone for a second who says otherwise.
If I ever visit the city where my mother grew up, I can drive by the foundry that her father worked in for his entire adult life. It closed years ago and is basically falling apart, which is standard for so many plants, foundries, factories, and mills across Northeast and Eastern Ohio.

What you'll also find are the holdouts from the steel strikes of the 1970s, living in their dilapidated houses with faded signs out front that say, "Still on strike" and "On strike since '77". They've gone 35 years without a job, because they didn't see the writing on the wall and that their choices were either take a pay cut or be permanently unemployed. "Get a raise and keep on working" was not an option; the conditions had changed too much.

Unlike so many, I don't have to go very far to find and see firsthand the devastation of a short-sighted money grab that crippled the ability of the employer to do business. When the economic boom of the 1990s was taking place, several of these towns still had unemployment over 20%, with a good chunk of that remaining 80% being people who were way past retirement age and taking jobs at McDonald's or Wal-Mart. My wife wanted to become a teacher, and was basically told that she'd have to break in against entire faculties full of steel widows in their 60s and 70s who were never going to retire because they couldn't.

I would hope that, with this in mind, my Ohio pragmatism would prevent me from blindly following a leader off a cliff. The NHLPA has three options, as I see them:
1) Make a deal, miss as little time as possible, and collect as much cash as possible
2) Don't make a deal, sign in Europe or the AHL, and play for substantially less than the NHL league minimum
3) Be replaced, then end up like the steel holdouts

Those steelworkers thought that a $1/hour pay cut was extreme, even though it would have meant a loss of $2,000 per year and $40,000 over 20 years. Instead, they decided to hold out...and have lost $40,000 a year over each of the last 35 years. Then throw in the pension, the insurance, and everything else.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2012, 01:13 PM
  #95
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 15,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceintheSpace* View Post
When you really break it down, not really. This entire thing is driven by the fact teams like Columbus and Phoenix are losing money, and Phoenix is contributing 25% of the total losses. Columbus is also in double digits. Two teams are driving almost half of the losses. He brings up valid points on the situations of each franchise thats really losing only an average of ~3-4 million.
More than half the teams in the league lost money last year. It's not just PHO and CBJ...

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2012, 01:37 PM
  #96
AHockeyGameBrokeOut*
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
Country: United States
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
If I ever visit the city where my mother grew up, I can drive by the foundry that her father worked in for his entire adult life. It closed years ago and is basically falling apart, which is standard for so many plants, foundries, factories, and mills across Northeast and Eastern Ohio.

What you'll also find are the holdouts from the steel strikes of the 1970s, living in their dilapidated houses with faded signs out front that say, "Still on strike" and "On strike since '77". They've gone 35 years without a job, because they didn't see the writing on the wall and that their choices were either take a pay cut or be permanently unemployed. "Get a raise and keep on working" was not an option; the conditions had changed too much.

Unlike so many, I don't have to go very far to find and see firsthand the devastation of a short-sighted money grab that crippled the ability of the employer to do business. When the economic boom of the 1990s was taking place, several of these towns still had unemployment over 20%, with a good chunk of that remaining 80% being people who were way past retirement age and taking jobs at McDonald's or Wal-Mart. My wife wanted to become a teacher, and was basically told that she'd have to break in against entire faculties full of steel widows in their 60s and 70s who were never going to retire because they couldn't.

I would hope that, with this in mind, my Ohio pragmatism would prevent me from blindly following a leader off a cliff. The NHLPA has three options, as I see them:
1) Make a deal, miss as little time as possible, and collect as much cash as possible
2) Don't make a deal, sign in Europe or the AHL, and play for substantially less than the NHL league minimum
3) Be replaced, then end up like the steel holdouts

Those steelworkers thought that a $1/hour pay cut was extreme, even though it would have meant a loss of $2,000 per year and $40,000 over 20 years. Instead, they decided to hold out...and have lost $40,000 a year over each of the last 35 years. Then throw in the pension, the insurance, and everything else.
This is a really great post. Thank you

AHockeyGameBrokeOut* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2012, 11:45 PM
  #97
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
If I ever visit the city where my mother grew up, I can drive by the foundry that her father worked in for his entire adult life. It closed years ago and is basically falling apart, which is standard for so many plants, foundries, factories, and mills across Northeast and Eastern Ohio.

What you'll also find are the holdouts from the steel strikes of the 1970s, living in their dilapidated houses with faded signs out front that say, "Still on strike" and "On strike since '77". They've gone 35 years without a job, because they didn't see the writing on the wall and that their choices were either take a pay cut or be permanently unemployed. "Get a raise and keep on working" was not an option; the conditions had changed too much.

Unlike so many, I don't have to go very far to find and see firsthand the devastation of a short-sighted money grab that crippled the ability of the employer to do business. When the economic boom of the 1990s was taking place, several of these towns still had unemployment over 20%, with a good chunk of that remaining 80% being people who were way past retirement age and taking jobs at McDonald's or Wal-Mart. My wife wanted to become a teacher, and was basically told that she'd have to break in against entire faculties full of steel widows in their 60s and 70s who were never going to retire because they couldn't.

I would hope that, with this in mind, my Ohio pragmatism would prevent me from blindly following a leader off a cliff. The NHLPA has three options, as I see them:
1) Make a deal, miss as little time as possible, and collect as much cash as possible
2) Don't make a deal, sign in Europe or the AHL, and play for substantially less than the NHL league minimum
3) Be replaced, then end up like the steel holdouts

Those steelworkers thought that a $1/hour pay cut was extreme, even though it would have meant a loss of $2,000 per year and $40,000 over 20 years. Instead, they decided to hold out...and have lost $40,000 a year over each of the last 35 years. Then throw in the pension, the insurance, and everything else.
Eh that must have sucked. Most recently in Ontario Canada, Caterpillar asked the union for a 25% decrease in salary of its low skilled work force to cope with the global downturn which is perfectly understandable. Guess what, the union refused and the whole plant was shut down. Now those formers even struggle to find part-time jobs at $10/h while they were used to $25/h type of jobs with full benefits at Caterpillar.

In the end, it all comes down to minimize your losses while you still can but those brainwashed players are beyond recovery IMHO. I am glad that most fans have seen through Fehr's own dirty agenda in recent events.

CN_paladin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2012, 11:49 PM
  #98
MikeK
Registered User
 
MikeK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,661
vCash: 8000
Started on the owners side then moved to neither and and now back to the owners side. Players are out to lunch.

MikeK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2012, 11:53 PM
  #99
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,743
vCash: 500
Polls like this really require a "neither" option.

Initially I was on the players' side...I'm now on the "neither" side but, if forced to choose, would pick players.

UsernameWasTaken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-28-2012, 12:21 AM
  #100
Ryancoke13
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 96
vCash: 500
Im on the fans side...

We suffer, players and owners don't.
Its Saturday night and I didn't get to watch HNIC

Ryancoke13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 08:10 PM.

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

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