i guess that spots like football/baseball are ingrained into the americain culture and popular from coast to coast... without a true national presence, tv revenues would suffer alot. tv is SUPER IMPORTANT to these leagues.
If these leagues choose to revenue share... and the people running these leagues are smart... then we must assume theres a good reason for them to revenue share. Personally, I see it. Im not shocked that they revenue share. Having no teams at all in markets smaller then the top 20 would suck for these leagues.
Hockey is a different matter of course. Hockey is trying to grow a presence in markets that dont accept it yet. Hockey is hoping one day for a huge tv deal but how realistic is it?
I guess if the owners felt that revenue sharing was in their best interest... that protecting these small markets at the expense of their own profits was in their best interest... then theyd do it. They do it some now... so they must feel they get some benefit...
but for any of us to tell them they are FORCED to do it more then they feel is appropriate... isnt going to fly. Its like how difficult it is to get a championship in college sports... or why is all the fighting between the various divisions. Even though in theory, all colleges could agree to be partners and maybe get some benefits... its just not human nature for it to happen
and not in all of their best interests either
obviously... more revenue sharing would help the small markets some... but enough? and at what expense to teams in toronto and philly that are owned by stock holders? its not billionares that own all the rich teams... some are owned by corporations with stock holders to account to.
Also, if I'm not in the minorty, what does that accomplish? My seats get sold, at a higher price than I'm currently paying per game? We've had this discussion several times in the ticket thread...given the team's popularity right now, from a business perspective, the team WANTS me to give up my tickets. They can make double per seat at the box office than what they're charging me.
I give up my tickets and am not a STH anymore, now have to scramble to find tickets to games that I want to go to, potentially paying a lot on the secondary market for in demand games like the Vancouver game last year, Black Friday, and playoff tickets. And the trade-off is the team makes double what they currently are getting from my seats.
How does that send a message in any way? I'm the one getting screwed here, not the team or your antichrist Jacobs.
I think Message Board advice from someone I have never met is the way to go.
Jacobs would have to do one of three things to get me to give up.
Murder a family member
**** a family member
Kick my dog
He could **** on my yard and I'd still keep my tickets. I realize I'd lose respect from some here but my Health plan covers councilling and I'm sure they would provide support and I'd overcome the rejection and being treated like Blake Wheeler
In the end, I have so much **** to do, so many options to do, if they play awesome, if they don't, well screw em, see you sometime- the world aint ending for me- I went thru this in 94 and 2004, like this is the worst thing that ever happened...
i think in all your aguments though is lost a certain reality. you are trying to hold the owners to your idea of logic... or maybe the common man's idea of logic. but these are billionare's on huge ego trips
Until you can grasp what motivates a professional sports owner, you wont be able to create a 'fix' to this lockout that has any chance of working.
I have to break this out into a few posts. But wow just wow. I'm the one who isn't looking at reality?
The owners do have egos but if it was about egos there wouldn't be a lockout. It is also about profits.
I grasp what motives an owner very well. Egos, competitiveness, money among other things. I have shown how the fix works for everyone on the players offer. Do you realize how close the owners and players offers were on money?
If the players offer isn't a fix, then neither is the owners. And if over $350M/year in cash and over $700M in cash and Franchise value for the owners doesn't work then I don't know what the hell will. I guess they can shut down the league and not make that money. People say they can make it up in their other businesses. If it was that easy to just produce that type of money from their other businesses very few would be in the NHL - ego or not.
At the end of the day... i argue... that the owners ego will ensure the players get paid a ton anyhow. The last CBA might have been managable if the owners had allowed it to work. But this goes against their human nature. We saw in practice what will happen under any system.
So no system is going to work? I guess we should shut down all sports leagues. Owners can never make any money.
Now your side of the argument will say that the players are the product... and they are partners... and thus its reasonable for them to have the rights to hijack the NHL for all their demands. But you keep denying that a very large part of the money they are taking is from the taxpayers... and another very large amount is coming form owners loses {not revenues but loses}
if a taxpayer willingly is willing to support the team... and is guaranteed to get what we pay for... then thats one thing. if owners are willingly willing to lose money... thats another thing...
but you are on the side of legislating into a 10 year binding contract... a formula that will need taxpayer dollers to float it... and will guarantee that many teams will continue to lose money unless they spend to the cap floor and somehow still manage to make the playoffs anyhow.
Taxpayers again?
1. Owners (not players) are taking that money from taxpayers to line their own pockets.
2. Taxpayers do get to vote to approve these deals - so they are willing to fund the owners.
3. There are benefits to the taxpayers and cities as well
4. It doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with what the players make.
What about owners are always going to ask for that money don't you understand?
Since you haven't provided any evidence of how this hurts taxpayers let me do it for you. Here are 2 articles that come to the conclusion that taxpayers are hurt.
Now the conclusion they come 2 is flawed because the are counting the cost as unearned revenue. But this is on bonds that would never be created without the teams. The only cost is whatever there is for a tax increase. They also don't present a complete picture of the help that it gives in jobs and revenue to the taxpayers and cities.
Here is the kicker though. Look at what teams are most talked about in the articles. Cowboys, Redskins and Red Wings. The 2 richest american franchises in sports and the 4th richest in hockey. That's right, the richest owners in football which pays players less than the NHL still asked for money. Until the government, cities, and taxpayers all refuse that money to teams you have no argument. The NHL going from 57% to whatever the final number is does not change things.
Conclusion - It doesn't matter. You can get whatever deal you would approve. 10% to the players if you want and it won't change a thing.
there is another solution to fixing this problem. The owners have around 200 million profit to split between them all to fix the problem but you want the fix to occur with this 200 million leaving none of them much of a profit at all...
No I don't. They are already making $126M. They will be making an additional $230M +. Only about $80M more is going to revenue sharing. It leaves all of them a lot of profit and every single team benefits under the new CBA.
the players though are taking home around 1.8 billion. a 33% reduction in their pay would free up 600 million to fix all issues. All teams would make very very healthy profits. And the players would still have 1.2 billion to split between there 700-800 members. They still average over 1.5 mill a year.
Now i tossed out a number way way way larger then the owners are asking for... but I did it for a reason. Just to make a bold point. The players would still average over 1.5 mill a year and the owners would also make alot of money... and the taxpayers could keep our money for things like schools and roads and hospitals instead of a second pool in some players summer cottage.
So the players would averaging $1.5M. You know what the owners would now be averaging? Over $24M in cash alone. Can you see at all why they don't need to take more from the players than what has been offered. And the taxpayer money isn't going towards a 2nd pool for a player. It is going for a 2nd private jet for an owner.
this is where your argument falls apart for me. I know you treat the numbers you have as gospel. Someone was accusing me of treating my numbers as gospel too. I sure dont. I realize i dont get to see any financial reports.
No I don't treat my numbers as gospel. They are what we have to work with and are far more correct than some of the hyperbolic numbers you have thrown out there.
You might be able to point out 5-10 owners that might seem to put profit ahead of team... the guy in florida seems to... but i can make you 30-40 owners who clearly have no freaking clue how to make money with their teams and just authorize one insane thing after another to stroke their egos instead.
So you want to take from players who have an average career of 4 years and don't have other businesses to fall back on to give to billionaires who can't or don't want to run their team right? That seems like great logic.
owners arent greedy... they are ego driven. In order to get a CBA that works, you need to satisfy their egos. You have to give them a chance to not go bankrupt while still feeling like they are in the big leagues. Or you have to at the very least guarantee a profit for them cause these are stupid men. they wont lose money AND have no chance at ego rush too.
They are both greedy and ego driven; and a new CBA as the players offered works. The last CBA could have worked and in fact did. It just didn't work for everyone or I should say some owners didn't make it work. A no cap no floor system works. A luxury tax works. They need to make it work and take some friggin responsibility for owning their teams. And if it is all about ego then again no we shouldn't take money from the players.
A loss in total revenues might not hurt the owners 1 single penny. IF costs go down more then revenues then a lockout might not cost the owners 1 single penny. BUT players get paid a % of revenues. A reduction in revenues DIRECTLY hurts the players.
I sure hope they feel this fight is worth it. The owners obviously do. I dont see what the players have to gain COMPARED to what they are GUARANTEED to lose. So i dont personally see why this fight is worth it to the players.
It hurts both sides and the players obviously feel it is worth it too. What they have gained so far from the owners first offer is another 7%, $211M of current contracts honored, and a bunch of small benefits. What they will get by waiting is also keeping some of their contracting rights, and probably more money for make whole.
at the very least... offer proposals that have some chance of being considered by the owners for more then 10 mins. Back off this revenue sharing idea that the owners have clearly rejected now. Alot of owners probably wouldnt care about ufa age... about length of contracts... about variance... because they were the ego maniacs doing all that crap anyhow.
I and the players have offered proposals that should be considered. Back off revenue sharing? You realize the owners and players have pretty much agreed to more revenue sharing? At a number actually higher than what I have shown works. I don't know what the hell you are looking but I'm not proposing all this extra revenue sharing that you think I am. Seriously, read my posts. You act like I want the CBA to continue as it is.
So make a proposal that has some chance of working... and you still get paid way more then the KHL or swiss league or sweden or germany...
All of my proposals will work.
if im wrong... then go start your own league. I dont care. id watch it. I just want my hockey. Whatever league is the best league locally... ill watch. But the evidence ultimately proves itself out whether being a pro league owner is a lucrative experience or not for most owners.
Evidence does show that it is profitable to be a pro league owner for most owners.
Most owners sell.. citing huge loses... after going to the local goverments for handouts... citing huge loses... then dont buy a second franchise. Unless they win a championship. Winning championships might change things a bit for some. Owners in very large/successful markets are the obvious exception to what im saying. So around 33% of owners are owners of very large/successful markets.
Many owners actually own their teams for a long time. When they sell it is at a profit. Some owners sell citing huge losses - which isn't usually true. When it does happen it is because they didn't run the team right and wracked up debt because of other financial issues outside of their team.
People that try to start rival sport leagues in the last 30 years to get rich... all go broke instead. All teh rival sport leagues have failed. A few Soccor leagues have failed. A couple hockey leagues have failed. A couple football leagues have failed. Even the NBA was in trouble. The NHL had to contract a couple teams... and many more teams had to relocate.
Rival sports leagues don't work because they don't have access to the best players or stadiums. It has nothing to do with pro franchises not being able to make money.
You keep saying its such a licence to print money if a team is run well.. but the evidence is what happens to so many teams... and whats still happening to the bottom 10 or so teams even now under this past cba too.
I don't believe I have ever used those words but yeah it pretty much is a license to print money if you run the team well. There are some markets that haven't worked. The evidence that happens to so many teams is that they haven't run their teams well. Tell me what franchises have been run to the best of owners ability that have gone under. You have said yourself that 30 to 40 owners don't know what they are doing. Isn't that why teams don't work? It goes far beyond them paying the players too much - which is also their own fault.
In the end, I have so much **** to do, so many options to do, if they play awesome, if they don't, well screw em, see you sometime- the world aint ending for me- I went thru this in 94 and 2004, like this is the worst thing that ever happened...
I really want them to play but I think this is the correct sentiment. Life goes on. Fans are actually saving money right now by the NHL not playing.
I don't believe I have ever used those words but yeah it pretty much is a license to print money if you run the team well. There are some markets that haven't worked. The evidence that happens to so many teams is that they haven't run their teams well. Tell me what franchises have been run to the best of owners ability that have gone under. You have said yourself that 30 to 40 owners don't know what they are doing. Isn't that why teams don't work? It goes far beyond them paying the players too much - which is also their own fault.
But again you keep saying that these owners should lock themselves into a six to ten year deal where not only must they give away their profits if they happen to make some... But its also perfectly acceptable not to make any because only if its their fault...
For the tecord i mostly agree with how you see things... I just totally disagree with the why you see things. yes its the owners that get the taxes but why are they needed... And what happens if they get cut off... And what do us fans get for our taxes if theres no hockey
And yes sports teams are an economic benefit to a city but so are casinos... I dont support tax dollars to them either.
Its clear you dont care whether or not several owners lose money but they do care how much they lose. a solution to this issue wont be found unless the owners concerns are addressed
So you want to take from players who have an average career of 4 years and don't have other businesses to fall back on to give to billionaires who can't or don't want to run their team right? That seems like great logic.
Oh, c'mon, cry me a river. We're not talking about sweatshop workers in Bangladesh who have no other hope.
These players, when they sign their contracts, know that their careers are short. There are not too many Tim Wakefields in the NHL. They have agents who are supposed to advise them on how to invest their million dollar salaries. I feel no remorse for their situation.
So you want to take from players who have an average career of 4 years and don't have other businesses to fall back on to give to billionaires who can't or don't want to run their team right? That seems like great logic.
that is true but in those 4 years, some of those said players will make more in those 4 years than I could make in 5 lifetimes....so yeah....I ain't worried about their prospects for a comfortable "retirement".
I mean the mean salary for NHL players is around 2.5 million per season....as an average earner...it would take me 2.5 lifetimes to accrue that kind of coin.
This argument has really become pointless to argue anymore.
Because someone may own 4, 5 6, whatever number of businesses does not mean that he/she should lose money on one of those businesses.
Every business has a right to make money regardless of what their other business ventures are doing. They have a right to be self sustaining. If I own three business ( A, B and C) if A and B are doing well and C sucks, I fix C regardless of what A and B are doing.
It's really not rocket science.
A small part may be mis-management, but a larger part is trying to improve the economics by spending to improve the product and an even larger part is just pure economics.
This argument has really become pointless to argue anymore.
Because someone may own 4, 5 6, whatever number of businesses does not mean that he/she should lose money on one of those businesses.
Every business has a right to make money regardless of what their other business ventures are doing. They have a right to be self sustaining. If I own three business ( A, B and C) if A and B are doing well and C sucks, I fix C regardless of what A and B are doing.
It's really not rocket science.
A small part may be mis-management, but a larger part is trying to improve the economics by spending to improve the product and an even larger part is just pure economics.
That's crazy talk Dom!.......
Everyone knows you find a sucker to buy C and then double down on A and B
i guess that spots like football/baseball are ingrained into the americain culture and popular from coast to coast... without a true national presence, tv revenues would suffer alot. tv is SUPER IMPORTANT to these leagues.
If these leagues choose to revenue share... and the people running these leagues are smart... then we must assume theres a good reason for them to revenue share. Personally, I see it. Im not shocked that they revenue share. Having no teams at all in markets smaller then the top 20 would suck for these leagues.
Hockey is a different matter of course. Hockey is trying to grow a presence in markets that dont accept it yet. Hockey is hoping one day for a huge tv deal but how realistic is it?
I guess if the owners felt that revenue sharing was in their best interest... that protecting these small markets at the expense of their own profits was in their best interest... then theyd do it. They do it some now... so they must feel they get some benefit...
but for any of us to tell them they are FORCED to do it more then they feel is appropriate... isnt going to fly. Its like how difficult it is to get a championship in college sports... or why is all the fighting between the various divisions. Even though in theory, all colleges could agree to be partners and maybe get some benefits... its just not human nature for it to happen
and not in all of their best interests either
obviously... more revenue sharing would help the small markets some... but enough? and at what expense to teams in toronto and philly that are owned by stock holders? its not billionares that own all the rich teams... some are owned by corporations with stock holders to account to.
It's amusing that you missed the point so spectacularly here.
It's not about the relative merits of or the economic effect of profit sharing. The point is that Bettman is either a blatant liar, or doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
This argument has really become pointless to argue anymore.
Because someone may own 4, 5 6, whatever number of businesses does not mean that he/she should lose money on one of those businesses.
Every business has a right to make money regardless of what their other business ventures are doing. They have a right to be self sustaining. If I own three business ( A, B and C) if A and B are doing well and C sucks, I fix C regardless of what A and B are doing.
It's really not rocket science.
A small part may be mis-management, but a larger part is trying to improve the economics by spending to improve the product and an even larger part is just pure economics.
Semantics, but I'd say "every business has the right to the opportunity to make money". Which all 30 teams already have. (well maybe not Phoenix)
I'm about to give up on a season this year. Has there been ANY progress with this, true progress? No compromising has happened, and its becoming increasingly clear both sides are pokerfacing each other.
Without any real movement, we're going to go through this every few years.
The owners 100% have a right to a system where they can make money.
They have zero right to a guarantee to make money.
Some of these teams are losing money because they are run like ****.
Maybe my wording wasn't the best choice of words Mike, and you are correct.
BUT... my original post was directed at the talk that they make money from their other businesses/ventures. The two are not intertwined and shouldn't be.
If I owned a billion dollar brief and boxer manufacturing company that basically printed its own money and an NHL team that lost money, why should the money I make selling you underwear have anything to do with the financial viability of my hockey team?
Now, if those briefs or boxers had NHL logo's on them, different story
Maybe my wording wasn't the best choice of words Mike, and you are correct.
BUT... my original post was directed at the talk that they make money from their other businesses/ventures. The two are not intertwined and shouldn't be.
If I owned a billion dollar brief and boxer manufacturing company that basically printed its own money and an NHL team that lost money, why should the money I make selling you underwear have anything to do with the financial viability of my hockey team?
Now, if those briefs or boxers had NHL logo's on them, different story
I agree. Success with one company in a totally different field should have no bearing on whether or not the other company is getting screwed.
But we should acknowledge the reality of the situation too.
Nobody buys a sports team to make copious amounts of money. It is probably the worst investment a rich person can make if they want to turn their gobs of money into gobier sums of money.
They are vanity purchases.
It is a little disingenuous to treat these guys like typical businessmen when they enter the sports world for other reasons.
And again, I honestly believe they still have a right to a fair system. I did support them overwhelmingly in 04 and thought the players didn't get it.
This time I think they greatly exaggerating the situation, and that this has more to do with their inability to share the money the league makes fairly.
