HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Boston Bruins
Notices

2012 CBA Discussion Part IV (Lockout talk here)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-22-2012, 01:07 PM
  #551
patty59
***************
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,233
vCash: 500
This lockout is starting to affect my personal life. Versteeg has 6 points in my beer league game last night, wouldn't have been such a big deal if he wasn't on the other team

Bochenski would have buried those 2 he rang of the bar

patty59 is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 01:48 PM
  #552
Kloparren
Hth
 
Kloparren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruinsBtn View Post
A good story about Milt Schmidt and what other retired players are missing out on.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey...of-lockout-cox
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
They're really just worried about future generations. And by future generations I mean their own immediate future.
Effin right Schmidt says the right thing when he says that he doesn't resent today's players but these guys are completely fighting for their own benefits not the benefits of ex-players. You can thank those ex-players for forming that union in the first place.

Especially Ted Lindsay for having the balls to get things going or there might not have been a union for another 10 or 20 seasons and these players wouldn't be getting as much today.

Kloparren is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 02:06 PM
  #553
ODAAT
Registered User
 
ODAAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,516
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuietCompany View Post
Effin right Schmidt says the right thing when he says that he doesn't resent today's players but these guys are completely fighting for their own benefits not the benefits of ex-players. You can thank those ex-players for forming that union in the first place.

Especially Ted Lindsay for having the balls to get things going or there might not have been a union for another 10 or 20 seasons and these players wouldn't be getting as much today.
Lindsay for getting it going, Carl Brewer for nailing a jackwagon like Eagleson and those like him for trying to get away with screwing the players. These players are just a touch more fortunate than those playing in the "old days"

Atta boy Roman
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=410069

liked this quote best

"I've talked to the guys in the locker room when we skate in Montreal, I've been in a meeting in Barcelona this summer where we were meeting with Fehr," he expalined. "From my experience at the meeting in Barcelona, they said we have everything set up. I have a proposal for the owners, we should be okay, blah blah, blah...but nothing happened. I'm just disappointed - I know it's a really tough business, it's not just me losing money. Everybody's losing money - the sooner we figure it out, the better for everybody."

ODAAT is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 02:36 PM
  #554
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Peoria, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
^
50/50 isn't happening in NHLPA proposals

They aren't linked proposals ,, Thus they are guaranteeing a share for players and that means there is not truly 50/50 in any year of NHLPA offer
I have seen you say this a few times here and also the idea that de-linking is a non starter. It has been repeated over, and over , and over, and over on the main board.

1. The PA gave the owners the option to defer 1 year. So Year 1 could be 50/50.

2. The owners' offer is de-linked itself. The idea that de-linking is a non starter is ridiculous. They are doing it themselves by paying $211M guaranteed. If they pay out make partial during the first shortened year there is real chance they pay over 57%. With 2 billion in revenue in a shortened season they would pay $1B + $149M. 1.149/2 = 57.45%.

If they pay in years 2 & 3 based on full season revenue they are paying well over 50%. Let's say there is damage from the lockout. 1 year of $3B in revenue and then back to $3.303B. The owners would be paying out 54.96% and 51.87% plus some interest in years 2 and 3 if they don't pay in year 1.

Other offers also got to 50% based on 5% growth rate that the owners themselves have been using.


Last edited by sjaustin77: 11-22-2012 at 02:50 PM.
sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 02:51 PM
  #555
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 94,641
vCash: 200
It isn't true linkage when PA dictates the cap cant fall below limit nor are the NHLPA shares to decline if revenue declines

That is nonstarter for NHL and puts all the risk even more on owners ,, None on players

Blackhawkswincup is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 03:10 PM
  #556
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Peoria, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
With 241 players losing their jobs during the last lockout, they have to be thinking that's a possibility again if this season is lost. And this time, they'll want the union to be thinking of them not the players of the future.

That's 1/3 of the jobs. And that's Hamrlik`s train of thought.
Not disagreeing with the number at all but that wasn't just because of the lockout. People like to quote that without realizing there is a large number of guys every year who don't play again.

Every year there are old guys who retire, middle aged guys who were injury filler types that never play again and some young guys who get their cup of coffee and who never make it, and foreign players that come over for a try and go back overseas.

I don't remember the numbers, but I saw an article that had something about the number of games played of guys that never played again. There were cut offs of like 50, 100, & 200 games. There wasn't nearly the same amount of guys that had any real establishment in the NHL that lost their jobs. These were players who were always going to be on the bubble.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 03:11 PM
  #557
Shaun
Registered User
 
Shaun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Country: Italy
Posts: 20,606
vCash: 500
Chris Johnston ‏@reporterchris
According to Czech media reports, Michal Neuvirth says he agrees with Roman Hamrlik's stance on the lockout.

here we go. hopefully more people follow.

Shaun is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 03:37 PM
  #558
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Peoria, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
It isn't true linkage when PA dictates the cap cant fall below limit nor are the NHLPA shares to decline if revenue declines

That is nonstarter for NHL and puts all the risk even more on owners ,, None on players
And I've never claimed the offers were true linkage. What I am claiming is the idea that de-linkage is a non starter is false. The owners' offer is de-linked. Period - End of story. If the players offered to play for 1.5B per year for the next 10 years you don't think the owners would accept that? That was 45.4% of revenue this year. Based on 5% growth (the owners' expectations) that share would be down to 27.9% in 10 years.

They are currently taking risk that they could wipe away all their profits based on last year for a year or 2 by paying $211M outside of 50/50. Their offer is not 50/50 either.

And you are wrong that the players offers didn't touch 50/50 in any year.

What the cap can't fall below has nothing to do with de-linkage. You can demand the cap be a certain amount and still link to a percentage.

The players trying to guarantee their share can't fall is de-linkage but only has a small risk to the owners and only for 3 years. Year 1 will be a short season. Full year revenue in year 2 will be enough so the owners don't have to worry about getting hurt. Revenues only need to grow at 1/2 the rate they have over the last CBA for those 3 years to work without additional risk.

The game has grown every year - after a lockout, with half the CBA during a recession. Based on attendance numbers there is more demand. The new TV contract is $100M more. There are other TV contracts up for renewal. They can get Phoenix an owner or move them. The Islanders are moving. They can expand into 2 revenue generating cities (which also gives franchise fee windfalls). There are more marketing opportunities out there.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 04:36 PM
  #559
Rumpy
Registered User
 
Rumpy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,330
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
And I've never claimed the offers were true linkage. What I am claiming is the idea that de-linkage is a non starter is false. The owners' offer is de-linked. Period - End of story. If the players offered to play for 1.5B per year for the next 10 years you don't think the owners would accept that? That was 45.4% of revenue this year. Based on 5% growth (the owners' expectations) that share would be down to 27.9% in 10 years.

They are currently taking risk that they could wipe away all their profits based on last year for a year or 2 by paying $211M outside of 50/50. Their offer is not 50/50 either.

And you are wrong that the players offers didn't touch 50/50 in any year.

What the cap can't fall below has nothing to do with de-linkage. You can demand the cap be a certain amount and still link to a percentage.

The players trying to guarantee their share can't fall is de-linkage but only has a small risk to the owners and only for 3 years. Year 1 will be a short season. Full year revenue in year 2 will be enough so the owners don't have to worry about getting hurt. Revenues only need to grow at 1/2 the rate they have over the last CBA for those 3 years to work without additional risk.

The game has grown every year - after a lockout, with half the CBA during a recession. Based on attendance numbers there is more demand. The new TV contract is $100M more. There are other TV contracts up for renewal. They can get Phoenix an owner or move them. The Islanders are moving. They can expand into 2 revenue generating cities (which also gives franchise fee windfalls). There are more marketing opportunities out there.
The problem is if the Canadian dollar goes down to .90 cents in 2 years the revenue becomes 1/3 of what it is today (that is just a random number) but you can no way garantee money to the players if you are an owner. Plus I have a feeling this lock out will hurt more than the last 2 due to the fact it is unwarranted and the fans are fed up.

Rumpy is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 04:55 PM
  #560
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpy View Post
The problem is if the Canadian dollar goes down to .90 cents in 2 years the revenue becomes 1/3 of what it is today (that is just a random number) but you can no way garantee money to the players if you are an owner. Plus I have a feeling this lock out will hurt more than the last 2 due to the fact it is unwarranted and the fans are fed up.
That's one of the very scary things about NHL finances right now. All the eggs are in just a couple of the proverbial baskets.The NBA as a whole may have been in a slightly worse financial predicament when it came to their lockout from a purely numbers standpoint, but it's not hard to see why owners in the NHL would think their situation just as dire if not more so. In the NBA more teams are making significant money where in the NHL only a few are. Most of those few are in one geographic location and are being supported wholly by an economy that has just recently come out of the basement. That would be terrifying if I owned an American team not named the New York Rangers. It isn't like the NBA where all of the biggest money teams are American based and where what revenue they do get is more spread out. And it most certainly isn't like the NFL where most teams are already lucrative ,where they all are American based, and where massive national broadcasting revenues (20 billion annually I believe or 75% of overall NFL revenue) support a very enviable revenue sharing program (I believe the NHL gets about 400 million a year, or roughly 1/40th from that same stream).

Kaoz is online now  
Old
11-22-2012, 06:07 PM
  #561
ranold26
Get off my rink!
 
ranold26's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,138
vCash: 500
If the NHLPA decertified, they should be renamed THUGS. The Hockey Union Gary Suppressed/Spited/Scorned.

ranold26 is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 06:35 PM
  #562
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Peoria, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpy View Post
The problem is if the Canadian dollar goes down to .90 cents in 2 years the revenue becomes 1/3 of what it is today (that is just a random number) but you can no way garantee money to the players if you are an owner. Plus I have a feeling this lock out will hurt more than the last 2 due to the fact it is unwarranted and the fans are fed up.
I know you are throwing out a random number but that is so far from reality.

1st - If the dollar goes to .90 then you are only losing 1/10th of revenue and on Canadian teams only. Canadian teams made up less than 30% of overall revenues. So you are losing 1/10 of only 30% of the revenue. You would also be lowering player expenses in a similar way.

2nd - As a currency is devalued places will just charge more of that currency. The U.S. currency has been declining and U.S. companies keep making more money. The changing currency does very little to change the overall numbers.

This lockout may hurt more if they lose a full season. I believe they will get an agreement sometime soon and there won't be much lost revenue except for the lost games.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 07:04 PM
  #563
Rumpy
Registered User
 
Rumpy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,330
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
I know you are throwing out a random number but that is so far from reality.

1st - If the dollar goes to .90 then you are only losing 1/10th of revenue and on Canadian teams only. Canadian teams made up less than 30% of overall revenues. So you are losing 1/10 of only 30% of the revenue. You would also be lowering player expenses in a similar way.

2nd - As a currency is devalued places will just charge more of that currency. The U.S. currency has been declining and U.S. companies keep making more money. The changing currency does very little to change the overall numbers.

This lockout may hurt more if they lose a full season. I believe they will get an agreement sometime soon and there won't be much lost revenue except for the lost games.

I have no idea how you can argue that the dollar had no influence on Canada/The NHL losing the Jets and Nordiques?

Weird how the Jets come back from a ****** hockey market and the NHL turns a bigger profit. Canada only has 6 NHL teams but the money and people up here drive the NHL. NHL Center Ice TSN TV deal Merchandise sales etc all are inflated due to the canadian dollar ....

Rumpy is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 07:50 PM
  #564
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Peoria, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
That's one of the very scary things about NHL finances right now. All the eggs are in just a couple of the proverbial baskets.The NBA as a whole may have been in a slightly worse financial predicament when it came to their lockout from a purely numbers standpoint, but it's not hard to see why owners in the NHL would think their situation just as dire if not more so. In the NBA more teams are making significant money where in the NHL only a few are. Most of those few are in one geographic location and are being supported wholly by an economy that has just recently come out of the basement. That would be terrifying if I owned an American team not named the New York Rangers. It isn't like the NBA where all of the biggest money teams are American based and where what revenue they do get is more spread out. And it most certainly isn't like the NFL where most teams are already lucrative ,where they all are American based, and where massive national broadcasting revenues (20 billion annually I believe or 75% of overall NFL revenue) support a very enviable revenue sharing program (I believe the NHL gets about 400 million a year, or roughly 1/40th from that same stream).
I guess it isn't hard to see why so many are on the owners side. They have no idea what the numbers actually are, look at the causes, or solutions besides taking money from players.

Here is the NBA profits from Forbes - http://www.forbes.com/nba-valuations/list/#p_1_s_a6_

15 teams lost money. A few more are making significant money but more are also losing a significant amount as compared to NHL teams.

Your football numbers are way off. It is a $9B industry. How are they getting $20B in TV revenue per year? They get about 4 billion which they share all of. They share a lot of other revenue too. All merchandising, 60/40 gate receipts plus an additional revenue sharing pool. Without revenue sharing the NFL would have many teams in the red too. They do have an enviable revenue sharing program. The NHL couldn't do it based on the TV contract but they could still share a similar % as the NFL.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 08:38 PM
  #565
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Peoria, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpy View Post
I have no idea how you can argue that the dollar had no influence on Canada/The NHL losing the Jets and Nordiques?

Weird how the Jets come back from a ****** hockey market and the NHL turns a bigger profit. Canada only has 6 NHL teams but the money and people up here drive the NHL. NHL Center Ice TSN TV deal Merchandise sales etc all are inflated due to the canadian dollar ....
So you are saying the reason the NHL made more money is because of the Jets? They increased profits in other years without them. I think it had to do with a lot of factors and isn't really weird. That area has been waiting for hockey for years. I would hope they could make money this year.

I didn't say anything about those teams back in the early to mid 90's. Do you know that it got worse after that until 2003? Why didn't Mon, Edm, Ott, Van, Cal & Tor lose franchises? Maybe because they raised prices accordingly, had large enough arenas, made the playoffs, spent within their budgets, etc.

There was no cap and floor so they needed to spend within their budget. You guys really like to make it about 1 issue. Look at all the reasons and solutions for what happened and what is happening with the current NHL.

I agree the NHL benefits from teams in Canada but it is due to many reasons outside the value of the Canadian dollar.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 09:05 PM
  #566
WestCoastBruinsFan
Registered User
 
WestCoastBruinsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 582
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
I guess it isn't hard to see why so many are on the owners side. They have no idea what the numbers actually are, look at the causes, or solutions besides taking money from players.

Here is the NBA profits from Forbes - http://www.forbes.com/nba-valuations/list/#p_1_s_a6_

15 teams lost money. A few more are making significant money but more are also losing a significant amount as compared to NHL teams.

Your football numbers are way off. It is a $9B industry. How are they getting $20B in TV revenue per year? They get about 4 billion which they share all of. They share a lot of other revenue too. All merchandising, 60/40 gate receipts plus an additional revenue sharing pool. Without revenue sharing the NFL would have many teams in the red too. They do have an enviable revenue sharing program. The NHL couldn't do it based on the TV contract but they could still share a similar % as the NFL.
I agree with mostly all of what you say and am on the players side but am mostly lurking as the topic detail is more than I want to investigate. At least I agree with mostly what I do understand. I do however enjoy reading many detailed opinions including yours.

I thought from day one when Bettman started the lockout that going in that direction was his grand scheme so he could apparently give the owners a big win. I also think he has a plan to not give in to anything the players propose until he reaches his own drop dead date. I personally do not agree with his method of negotiating and think he has little big man syndrome and is expressing his bullyness because he can.

I personally thought the owners won the last lockout if not over the duration of the CBA, but they certainly did theoretically win huge at the time of signing. Then the GM's found a way to mess it up with front loaded contracts that lasted for ridiculously long periods. Some GM's like Burke and Chia refused to play that game but there were enough of them willing to cheat the system to cause contracts to spiral.

I also agree with AOF that the real issue is the mid level contracts that range into the 4 to 5 M range. On top of everything, I do miss hockey but am successfully finding good things to pass the time with and plan to not watch as much once they return. I will though, keep coming here for great insight.

WestCoastBruinsFan is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 09:44 PM
  #567
Rumpy
Registered User
 
Rumpy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,330
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
So you are saying the reason the NHL made more money is because of the Jets? They increased profits in other years without them. I think it had to do with a lot of factors and isn't really weird. That area has been waiting for hockey for years. I would hope they could make money this year.

I didn't say anything about those teams back in the early to mid 90's. Do you know that it got worse after that until 2003? Why didn't Mon, Edm, Ott, Van, Cal & Tor lose franchises? Maybe because they raised prices accordingly, had large enough arenas, made the playoffs, spent within their budgets, etc.

There was no cap and floor so they needed to spend within their budget. You guys really like to make it about 1 issue. Look at all the reasons and solutions for what happened and what is happening with the current NHL.

I agree the NHL benefits from teams in Canada but it is due to many reasons outside the value of the Canadian dollar.
I bet around 2003 is when the Canadian dollar got within .10 of the American one for the first time in decades. I am not a huge economics guy and I'm not gunna research it but I'll be really happy if you just proved my point for me.

Edmonton was really close to losing the Oilers. The Flames and Senators have had their fair share of financial problems.

Great lets have no cap or cap floor and have teams in the NHL like they do in the MLB such as the Pirates Expos and Marlins who are essentially farm teams for the Yankees Mets (worst franchise ever) Sox and other big money teams.....

I understand your point of view but the league is total crap in that system. Do you wanna be a Bruins fan in the mid 90's again? They had no chance of ever winning because our owner has/had a self imposed cap?

As a Bruins fan I LOVE the cap and it has to be tied to revenue. Or we go back to Tor NYR Det Phi and 3 or 4 other teams being the only ones with legit chances of winning. Don't bring up the Devils or Avs or whomever there will always be that team that drafts well and has that 3 or 4 year window much like the Devil Rays in the MLB right now but it won't be sustained and they will be a minor league team shortly. The system is seriously flawed...

A competative league where all 30 teams fans players and owners actually feel like they have a chance of winning is how you increase revenues and players salary alike. Don Fehr is a complete knob and just like Boras wants money now no matter what or who he hurts in the process. I genuinely believe the NHL is looking towards the future with this system and if the owners win the NHL will continue the upward trend. If the players win the NHL will be stuck on ESPN Ocho.

Rumpy is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 10:33 PM
  #568
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Peoria, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpy View Post
I bet around 2003 is when the Canadian dollar got within .10 of the American one for the first time in decades. I am not a huge economics guy and I'm not gunna research it but I'll be really happy if you just proved my point for me.

Edmonton was really close to losing the Oilers. The Flames and Senators have had their fair share of financial problems.

Great lets have no cap or cap floor and have teams in the NHL like they do in the MLB such as the Pirates Expos and Marlins who are essentially farm teams for the Yankees Mets (worst franchise ever) Sox and other big money teams.....

I understand your point of view but the league is total crap in that system. Do you wanna be a Bruins fan in the mid 90's again? They had no chance of ever winning because our owner has/had a self imposed cap?

As a Bruins fan I LOVE the cap and it has to be tied to revenue. Or we go back to Tor NYR Det Phi and 3 or 4 other teams being the only ones with legit chances of winning. Don't bring up the Devils or Avs or whomever there will always be that team that drafts well and has that 3 or 4 year window much like the Devil Rays in the MLB right now but it won't be sustained and they will be a minor league team shortly. The system is seriously flawed...

A competative league where all 30 teams fans players and owners actually feel like they have a chance of winning is how you increase revenues and players salary alike. Don Fehr is a complete knob and just like Boras wants money now no matter what or who he hurts in the process. I genuinely believe the NHL is looking towards the future with this system and if the owners win the NHL will continue the upward trend. If the players win the NHL will be stuck on ESPN Ocho.
No sorry, it didn't get to within .10 until about May of 2007. Actually went back over for about 10 months between Oct 2008 to August 2009 and as high as .26 over during that time.

I haven't argued for a system for no cap or floor. For the Bruins a cap is great and I want some restrictions on contracts. It will help all teams compete including the Bruins who haven't given out lengthy contracts.

The league is the most competitive of all leagues because hockey is the ultimate team sport. That won't change with what the players are proposing. I don't think Fehr is a knob at all. Sure he has a free market view of the world and that isn't how most sports are run now but he isn't going after the cap. He is a very good negotiator and there will be many things in the new CBA that help future players.

If the NHL was looking to the future they would have found a way to get an agreement without losing games. I think a soft landing as I proposed a couple pages back would have gotten it done. Lockouts do not help the teams that need the help. The last lockout was probably necessary but it took away the All Star game from Phoenix. This lockout looks like it will take away the All Star game from Columbus. Two teams that really need this type of exposure. They would also share revenue in a similar % as the other leagues.

If the players win (neither side is winning by not playing) the results will be exactly the same. The proposals are very close despite the rhetoric on both sides. I hope the NHL comes back with an improved offer tomorrow. And what do you have against ESPN Ocho anyway?

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 05:44 AM
  #569
cat400
Registered User
 
cat400's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranold26 View Post
If the NHLPA decertified, they should be renamed THUGS. The Hockey Union Gary Suppressed/Spited/Scorned.

That has a nice ring to it.

cat400 is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 06:02 AM
  #570
ODAAT
Registered User
 
ODAAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,516
vCash: 500
sjaustin, allow me to preface this by stating I mean absolutely no disrespect at all. I do recall you mentioning what it is you do for a living but can`t recall and it isn`t important but I have to ask, does your boss know how much time/energy/effort your putting into this thread potentially neglecting work responsibilities????

This isn`t meant as an attack, been reading alot of what you have written, don`t necessarily agree with it all by any stretch, every fan`s contributions are appreciated, but you are either self employed, or have a boss who keeps no eye on his/her employees

ODAAT is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 06:21 AM
  #571
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Peoria, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ODAAT View Post
sjaustin, allow me to preface this by stating I mean absolutely no disrespect at all. I do recall you mentioning what it is you do for a living but can`t recall and it isn`t important but I have to ask, does your boss know how much time/energy/effort your putting into this thread potentially neglecting work responsibilities????

This isn`t meant as an attack, been reading alot of what you have written, don`t necessarily agree with it all by any stretch, every fan`s contributions are appreciated, but you are either self employed, or have a boss who keeps no eye on his/her employees
Yeah, self employed. Insurance & mortgages. Insurance takes very little time. Mortgages are more time consuming but once a deal is in processing it is mostly just follow up.

I technically have a boss in the mortgage industry but I can do what I want. Go in the office, work from home, not work - whatever. Boss gets paid 24% of my deals.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 07:00 AM
  #572
Ladyfan
Miss you Savvy !
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: next to the bench
Country: Scotland
Posts: 24,858
vCash: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranold26 View Post
If the NHLPA decertified, they should be renamed THUGS. The Hockey Union Gary Suppressed/Spited/Scorned.
I like it.

__________________
Get well Pevs. B's fans sending you a hug!!!.
Ladyfan is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 07:04 AM
  #573
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
I guess it isn't hard to see why so many are on the owners side. They have no idea what the numbers actually are, look at the causes, or solutions besides taking money from players.

Here is the NBA profits from Forbes - http://www.forbes.com/nba-valuations/list/#p_1_s_a6_

15 teams lost money. A few more are making significant money but more are also losing a significant amount as compared to NHL teams.
My information came from the statement released by the NBA during their lockout:
http://www.nba.com/2011/news/10/04/l....ap/index.html
Quote:
Stern said the owners had removed their demand for a hard salary cap, were no longer insisting on salary rollbacks, and would have given players the right to opt out of a 10-year agreement after seven years. But the money split was always going to be the biggest hurdle in these negotiations, with owners insistent on the ability to turn a profit after the league said 22 of its 30 teams lost money last season.
And why quote exact numbers to try and prove your point while using an ambiguous definition like "a few more are making significant money" to show the counter point is incorrect. According to Forbes:
- 7 NBA teams are pulling in 20+ million in revenue (none are Canadian)
- 8 others are bringing in 5+ million in revenue (1 is Canadian)
That's more then a few. That's half the league.

According to Forbes:
- 4 NHL teams are pulling in 20+ million in revenue (3 of which are Canadian)
- 4 others are bringing in 5+ million in revenue (1 of which is Canadian)

That's a fairly significant difference when talking about money making teams between the two, hence the point I made here stands. What revenue the NBA makes is spread out over nearly twice as many teams making risk much less a factor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
Your football numbers are way off. It is a $9B industry. How are they getting $20B in TV revenue per year? They get about 4 billion which they share all of. They share a lot of other revenue too. All merchandising, 60/40 gate receipts plus an additional revenue sharing pool. Without revenue sharing the NFL would have many teams in the red too. They do have an enviable revenue sharing program. The NHL couldn't do it based on the TV contract but they could still share a similar % as the NFL.
First, my apologies, football isn't my thing and all those numbers come from research I do, but it wasn't nearly as erroneous as you want to make it out to be. It's a 20 billion total value with ESPN, not annual which was my significant mistake (4 billion annual but when you add in other TV revenue apparently it's closer to 6 billion yearly and is supposed to be climbing to nearly 7 billion per) which STILL equates to 66-75% of revenue each year. As I said, the NHL has no such lucrative broadcast contracts (again, theirs are worth about 350million total - even the NBA is about 3 times that value) and couldn't get one no matter how hard they tried because sorry just not that many people are interested, and therefore it's revenue sharing comes directly out of the wealthier teams pockets. The higher revenue teams would now have almost no incentive to try to maximize income, or as I like to call it, ream their fans on ticket prices as you'd be taking directly out of their pockets to give to teams that practically at times give their tickets away. They could lower their own revenue, and therefore the NHL's and still bring home similar profit all while making their fans happy campers.

The point stands, that's the huge difference, it's why the two aren't at all comparable and why you can't use the NFL's revenue sharing model to prove the NHL could be profitable. There simply aren't enough money making teams and too many money losing teams in the NHL to support it.


Last edited by Kaoz: 11-23-2012 at 07:30 AM.
Kaoz is online now  
Old
11-23-2012, 07:29 AM
  #574
CosmicSpoon
Registered User
 
CosmicSpoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 53
vCash: 500
nhl all star game is about to be canceled

CosmicSpoon is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 07:30 AM
  #575
Salem13
Registered User
 
Salem13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Salem,Mass
Country: United States
Posts: 2,588
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicSpoon View Post
nhl all star game is about to be canceled
It's not like we need a midpoint break form a 40 game season

Salem13 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:55 AM.

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

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