The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Does Anybody Here Remember Vera Lynn? (CBA & Lockout Discussion) XXVIII
Ok, so the NHLPA has a choice to move Phoenix to KC, Seattle, or Vegas. I'm picking harder choices than Markham here.
You ask the captains from all 30 teams to make a decision. How do they make it?
Of course there are assumptions here. I'm going to assume Shane Doan has no idea about demographic surveys, market viability, the structure of TV deals, or arena loans. I think that's a pretty good assumption.
People don't do research before committing to a business venture?
Ok, so the NHLPA has a choice to move Phoenix to KC, Seattle, or Vegas. I'm picking harder choices than Markham here.
You ask the captains from all 30 teams to make a decision. How do they make it?
Of course there are assumptions here. I'm going to assume Shane Doan has no idea about demographic surveys, market viability, the structure of TV deals, or arena loans. I think that's a pretty good assumption.
Doan would keep it right there in Phoenix. I am pretty sure that Fisher would have the Preds stay in Nashville. My point was that poster to whom you were responding really can't make a blanket statement on what the players would want. I am sure the players are divided on ideal locations, even more than the owners.
I am pretty sure the owners did their research. I went through the population shifts in looking at the latest election results comparing them to my teen years (60s) and the league pretty much looked to the areas that were seeing the greatest expansion in population. And that expansion is pretty dramatic. That is part of how the Dodgers and Angels hit it big in LA when baseball was pretty much an east coast/midwest league.
Sorry, still disagree, because as I touched on in the previous thread, the flip side of open contracts, means NFL players can renegotiate their deals after two years.
So NFL players rarely get stuck in a bad contract, whereas NHL players are locked into their deals, even if they outperform their contracts (see Letang, Kris)
NHL players may have guaranteed contracts, but they have no true signing bonuses, can't renegotiate bad deals and still can be bought out.
I also touched on how rookies under PT CBA got paid a kings ransom for doing zilch. Guys like Young and Russell earned tens of millions, and they were busts.
It is far from a closed case.
Just to add to this. Burrows is arguably one of the best examples of being "cheated." Vancouver was paying him a mere two million while he was popping near 30+ goal seasons, one of which he was on pace for 40. When you couple the fact he is fantastic defensively, you realize just how ridiculous that contract favored the Nucks.
Suppose, that is the flip side of guaranteed contracts. They can backfire on the player just as much as the owner/GM.
Doan would keep it right there in Phoenix. I am pretty sure that Fisher would have the Preds stay in Nashville. My point was that poster to whom you were responding really can't make a blanket statement on what the players would want. I am sure the players are divided on ideal locations, even more than the owners.
Just to add to this. Burrows is arguably one of the best examples of being "cheated." Vancouver was paying him a mere two million while he was popping near 30+ goal seasons, one of which he was on pace for 40. When you couple the fact he is fantastic defensively, you realize just how ridiculous that contract favored the Nucks.
Suppose, that is the flip side of guaranteed contracts. They can backfire on the player just as much as the owner/GM.
Unfortunately, it's a much rarer instance to find a Burrows contract than it is to find a Boumeester/Gomez/Horcoff/ contract.
This is the problem I have with a lot of supposedly 'Pro-PA' people in here. You guys would have the players takes things on that
a) no player would want to actually do
and
b) in many cases would open the players up to large financial ramifications
For most of you, your rationale is a purely moral one. You'd have these guys do things that might not be in their best interest, but for those of us looking from the outside in seems like the 'right thing to do'.
For example, moving Phoenix. Simple idea right? Boom, it makes more revenue. Or does it?
What is their local TV deal? How much will it take to break the contracts in Phoenix? Will Glendale city council sue? How much will the relocation fee cost? All these things and more will factor into the new location and it may or may not result in that franchise making money.
Remember, Phoenix still contributes revenue. It's losses are borne by their owners and the league. The revenue it does generate is added to league HRR - around $67M. Let's say that it suddenly generates twice the revenue - now $145M. That's $67M/30 teams so $2.2M per team - that's barely one player.
Ok, now what happens if it costs $100M to move the franchise? Are we really looking at a windfall? Will the NHLPA be on the hook for part of that money? How are they going to generate that kind of money? Union fees?
It's not as simple as it seems.
You are creating problems that don't/ won't exist:
The Fox Sports Network (FSN) local affiliate deal with the Phoenix Coyotes is estimated to be worth less than $2.5M a year
So they're making nothing from their TV deal.
Why would it cost 100M for anyone except the owner of the franchise? Why would the PA be on the hook for any of that cost (I don't recall the PA or the NHL paying for the move of the Thrashers)?
I really don't get what you're going on about with the 2.2 mil: 2.2 mil moves 3 teams from the red ( and that's excluding the Coyotes themselves, so that's 4). That'd make more than half of the teams in the NHL profitable even without RS
(when going by this list: http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/#p_1_s_a6_ ).
Unfortunately, it's a much rarer instance to find a Burrows contract than it is to find a Boumeester/Gomez/Horcoff/ contract.
Oh, definitely. Personally, I dislike guaranteed contracts, as it removes incentive. Granted, only a small portion need an extra kick but, nothing is more frustrating from a fan perspective than to see players signed to big ticket contracts only to woefully underperform.
There are plenty of people who have never been in an accident. The problem with your statement is, you make it sound like every person who has ever been in an accident put it upon themselves because they're not "a talented enough driver that you can avoid all collisions". Sometimes there is no way to avoid a collision no matter how good of a driver you are.
Anyway, you're bringing in an apples vs oranges conversation.
It was not I who made the analogy.
The point is that history is the best indicator for the future and many businesses use this philosophy.
Why would it cost 100M for anyone except the owner of the franchise? Why would the PA be on the hook for any of that cost (I don't recall the PA or the NHL paying for the move of the Thrashers)?
I really don't get what you're going on about with the 2.2 mil: 2.2 mil moves 3 teams from the red ( and that's excluding the Coyotes themselves, so that's 4). That'd make more than half of the teams in the NHL profitable even without RS
(when going by this list: http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/#p_1_s_a6_ ).
Your math is wrong because your not considering the revenue the team would generate in its new location. If you take Phoenix and move it to a location where it generates 100 million. The salary cap goes up by 1.1 million which push teams farther in the red.
Because the owners certainly know what they're doing:
- 3 lockouts under GB
- 1 missed season
- 5 relocations under GB
- (apparently) 27 teams not making a profit
These dudes are the greatest businessmen of all-time! Their judgement can totally be trusted.
Kinda screams the CBA is broken doesn't it?
And thats the bottomline.. despite record revenue... the system is broken.
Sorry, still disagree, because as I touched on in the previous thread, the flip side of open contracts, means NFL players can renegotiate their deals after two years.
No true. NFL teams have no obligation to renegotiate when the player is still under contract. Players can ask, but teams don't have to agree.
NFL players often use holdout to "force" teams to renegotiate a contract. While some players success, some also fail.
Holdout is also an option for NHL players, just not too many doing it. Drew Doughty comes to mind as he held out as a restricted FA before finally getting his 8-year 56M contract. Kyle Turris is another recent example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly
So NFL players rarely get stuck in a bad contract, whereas NHL players are locked into their deals, even if they outperform their contracts (see Letang, Kris)
Wrong, NFL players do get stuck in a bad contract (or stuck as restricted free agent). Not every held-out player get the contract he wants.
Look how long Vincent Jackson was stuck before he finally got a long-term contract and big signing bonus, or Mick Wallace fails to get a big long-term contract and is forced to play under his 2.7M restricted FA tender this year, or Jason Peters was forced to play under his rookie contract before being traded and finally getting long-term contract, or Jarrad Page's failed hold-out etc.
NFL players also hold out for long-term contracts after teams use franchise tag on them. While, with franchise tag, they get a 1-year deal with the average of top 5 or 10 salaries in the same position, they don't get long-term deals and big signing bonus. There are even more failed hold-out examples in this case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly
I also touched on how rookies under PT CBA got paid a kings ransom for doing zilch. Guys like Young and Russell earned tens of millions, and they were busts.
That was a loophole in rookie pool before latest CBA. If you want to bring this up to favor players, you can't ignore the other loophole in previous CBAs favoring team owners, which is the NLTBE loophole allowing teams able to go under cap floor and many small market teams did so.
I think the reason why there is no deal in place is that Fehr convinced the players that a better offer will be put on the table by the NHL by holding out.
Up untill now he has been right...the NHL has put a better offer on the table every time while claiming they just put forward their best offer.
I think it is in the best interest for these negotiations if the NHL refuses to put forward a new and better offer and just hold out to the players.
That way Fehr can not have an excuse anymore to the players that holding out is the best option.
Hopefully that results in players pressuring Fehr to make a deal.
It may even help if the NHL change their offer to something a little bit lower because of the damages done with the current lockout. This way it is a signal to the players that the best deal already passed the table.
I might be wrong...but that is one way I have a look at it.
I just woke up from a dream that the CBA had been settled and hockey was coming back. I am so ****ing pissed that it wasn't real that I started up my computer just to post this. Now i am going back to sleep.
I think the reason why there is no deal in place is that Fehr convinced the players that a better offer will be put on the table by the NHL by holding out.
Up untill now he has been right...the NHL has put a better offer on the table every time while claiming they just put forward their best offer.
I think it is in the best interest for these negotiations if the NHL refuses to put forward a new and better offer and just hold out to the players.
That way Fehr can not have an excuse anymore to the players that holding out is the best option.
Hopefully that results in players pressuring Fehr to make a deal.
It may even help if the NHL change their offer to something a little bit lower because of the damages done with the current lockout. This way it is a signal to the players that the best deal already passed the table.
I might be wrong...but that is one way I have a look at it.
It's true the NHL may be emboldening Fehr and the PA by caving every time and coming back to the table with a deal better than the last one what ....? Like three times already.
Wouldn't surprise me if Fehr's plan is to wait this out even longer and see if he can't fish out a better deal in December, January (or gulp) can the season altogether. You very well could be right.
Both sides are yapping a lot, but Fehr really only responds to concrete action, and basically right now, you're 100% right. He's been rewarded for having this lock out go on longer. Every offer the NHL comes back after a few weeks is better than the last one. He has no incentive to sign a deal now.
The reason why we have a lockout every 7 or 8 years, is the owners knows they can bully the players around, wait them out and get everything they want in the CBA.
The players need a strong union and not give the owners everything the want every time the CBA expires, that's why in baseball there's no lockout, the owners know they will not win against a very strong union, they're been there, done that and not doing it again.
The same thing must happen in the NHL for all those lockout to end. This is why this lockout is very important for the future on the NHLPA, if they let the owners win again they might as well disband the union.
The reason why we have a lockout every 7 or 8 years, is the owners knows they can bully the players around, wait them out and get everything they want in the CBA.
The players need a strong union and not give the owners everything the want every time the CBA expires, that's why in baseball there's no lockout, the owners know they will not win against a very strong union, they're been there, done that and not doing it again.
The same thing must happen in the NHL for all those lockout to end. This is why this lockout is very important for the future on the NHLPA, if they let the owners win again they might as well disband the union.
So it's nothing to do with the 'haves' essentially paying the 'have-nots' to suck, or the players being paid less than 50 % of the league wide revenues?
It's true the NHL may be emboldening Fehr and the PA by caving every time and coming back to the table with a deal better than the last one what ....? Like three times already.
Wouldn't surprise me if Fehr's plan is to wait this out even longer and see if he can't fish out a better deal in December, January (or gulp) can the season altogether. You very well could be right.
Both sides are yapping a lot, but Fehr really only responds to concrete action, and basically right now, you're 100% right. He's been rewarded for having this lock out go on longer. Every offer the NHL comes back after a few weeks is better than the last one. He has no incentive to sign a deal now.
I'm not sure it's all that accurate. The NHL signaled where they would want to end up with their first offer in July. Fehr basically did nothing for months but delay and table proposals that were DoA. After months of fehring about NHL is in the neighborhood of where we always knew they wanted to go.
If Fehr would have negotiated, the NHL would have been where they are now in early August.
I guess you could argue that a little bit of extra in revenue sharing is the result of wasting a few months of the players pay checks. But that NHL are willing to settle for a 50/50 split, even with some phasing in? Of course not.
The NBA played a 66 game season. Their revenues are expected to increase to $5B from $4.2B. Stern and Peter Holt. They were smart enough to make a deal. Make a deal Gary. We have Jeremy Jacobs as the main NHL owner. Jeremy appears at the meetings on Friday and everything falls apart.
Make a deal. Fehr isn't going to stick around. Losing another season. Gary can't be serious.
The NBA owners wanted a hard cap. They backed off and kept the same system with much harsher luxury taxes. They made a deal and their business will grow to the tune of $5B in revenue. It wouldn't be a $5B business if they had lost an entire season and the start of 12-13 season was tainted or delayed. They expanded their revenue sharing. 2 year transition period. Cap remained at $58,044,000 for 11-12 and 12-13. The NBA didn't get everything they wanted. The NFL didn't get everything they wanted. The new luxury taxes kick with the 13-14. Two year transition period. The NHLPA is looking for a soft landing and they are called greedy. The NBA agreed to a 2 year soft landing. $5B business. Increased revenue sharing.
Because the owners certainly know what they're doing:
Gary can't be serious.
