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
11-16-2012, 11:42 AM
  #201
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegodfather View Post
But which 40 Kaoz ?

One season they come out strong and fade and then come out weak and gain momentum...just to fall short..
Who are we kidding. They'll finish low enough to miss the playoffs but high enough to ruin their draft pick.

Kaoz is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 12:33 PM
  #202
bruinsfan46
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,122
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
Who are we kidding. They'll finish low enough to miss the playoffs but high enough to ruin their draft pick.
And play the last 10 games well enough that their fans can truly believe next year is the year, "Bozak prorates to a 65 point centre guys!"

bruinsfan46 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 12:39 PM
  #203
WBC8
Registered User
 
WBC8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: HFL 4 Life
Country: United States
Posts: 34,568
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to WBC8
Would love for this to end like Hostess and the employees lose their jobs for good and the business to go under permanently.....Idiots.

3.2 billion right? 1.6 billion to each side... figure out how it's handed out and move on.

WBC8 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 12:43 PM
  #204
WBC8
Registered User
 
WBC8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: HFL 4 Life
Country: United States
Posts: 34,568
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to WBC8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossfire View Post
I would be fine with a 50 game season starting on January 1st. I just need something
Atleast then the Kings won't be able to use the tired excuse like defending champs before them...

WBC8 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 12:48 PM
  #205
Dogberry
NHL2Seattle plzkthx
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 8,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhamBamCam8 View Post
Would love for this to end like Hostess and the employees lose their jobs for good and the business to go under permanently.....Idiots.

3.2 billion right? 1.6 billion to each side... figure out how it's handed out and move on.
At this point, that would no longer bother me, I think. Trash the league and the PA and start over. Screw it.

Dogberry is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 12:54 PM
  #206
Looch
B's, C's & Sox
 
Looch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Gilford, NH
Country: United States
Posts: 2,864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morris Wanchuk View Post
NHL seems to be playing by the NBA's script... they will push to see what they get.. however, I don't see how the majority of players or owners want to not have a season.

Look at the NBA, they started on Christmas, played a shortened season, and by the time the finals rolled around no one remembered the lockout.
It's not popular here. But must be said. The NHL isn't the NBA (and I know 99.9% of poster here are glad). They play in the same buildings. But for the most part, they don't share the same fan base. Basketball is more popular than hockey in this country. They entertain a wider audience imo. It is easier for them to recover imo.

Their season also starts a month later. So starting at Christmas for them would be like starting on Nov 25th for the NHL.

Agreed, no one was talking about the NBA lockout during the playoffs and into the finals. If the NHL starts Jan 1st, I'd be willing to bet you'll still here mentions of the lockout during the playoffs. If there aren't original 6 teams still in it, I'd be willing to bet you see a lot of empty seats during playoff games. Say what you want about David Stern. But, Stern > Bettman. The NHL's track record after work stoppages is worse than the NBA's I believe.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Hnidy Hnight View Post
It's definately a good thing. Casual fans only drive up prices. What you want ideally as a hardcore fan is what New Jersey had in their glory years. Cup contending product, with plenty of cheap ticket specials
It's really a matter of perspective imo. And I'm not saying this from purely a re-sellers perspective. Just because you have a hardcore fan base, doesn't mean you are going to have sold out games. People all have their own opinions on pink hat fans. But a full building changes the atmosphere at games. A game is more exciting when the seats are full. And it doesn't matter if many of them don't know what offsides is. A venue at 40 or 50% capacity of hardcore fans is great. But imo it doesn't make the game as exciting.

Last year I believe the B's had 50% of the building sold to hardcore fans for every game. But the other half was sold to "casual" fans (no need to turn this into what is and isn't a "pink hat"). I don't believe for a second the games would have been a better experience if the team was playing at he same level they were last year, but you removed 50% of the crowd (all the casual fans). Tickets prices would undoubtedly be cheaper. But the experience wouldn't be the same.

Because of the Boston market, whenever the team is playing well, tickets prices will always be high. As casual fans are willing to pay significantly more to attend whatever the current popular team is. Boston will never have a Cup contender with ticket specials. It's a oxymoron in a major market. And I believe hardcore fans like they had in NJ (the very few DKH's of the world aside) would be willing to give up their ticket specials for a packed arena every night with 50% hardcore fans and 50% casual fans. Because imo, when they do sell out games in NJ (like they did 11 consecutive times during the playoffs last year) they had exactly that, 50% hardcore fans and 50% casual fans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DKH View Post
the word begins with an s but it is stubborn; they can still play 46 or so if they start by January 1st. The owners know that- the players have to be very nervous.

Someone will put the imaginary gun down.

I thought they'd have a deal now, but until they BOTH reach the edge of the cliff and that would logically (to me) be January 1st or actually mid December to get a deal in place.

Just pathetic but really the owners KNOW the date they can go up to and they have the power because THEY write the checks
I'm going on record today as predicting a double homicide to be widely reported just before Christmas.

__________________
BuddysTickets@gmail.com

Last edited by Looch: 11-16-2012 at 01:01 PM.
Looch is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:18 PM
  #207
BlackNgold 84
Registered User
 
BlackNgold 84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 2,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
Toronto might actually make the playoffs... they seem to be built for 40 game stretches.
There was a thread on the main board that said "would shorten season ruin a stanley cup win" or something to that effect. Everyone said no until someone said "unless the leafs win it all" i got a good chuckle out of it.

BlackNgold 84 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:23 PM
  #208
Roll 4 Lines
Gitchyasum!
 
Roll 4 Lines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bear Country
Country: United States
Posts: 5,664
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogberry View Post
At this point, that would no longer bother me, I think. Trash the league and the PA and start over. Screw it.
Yep. I totally agree.

They can all go screw!

Roll 4 Lines is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:34 PM
  #209
Dwatson783
@dwatson783
 
Dwatson783's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,721
vCash: 500
Anyone want to KickStart a new hockey league?

Dwatson783 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:40 PM
  #210
Looch
B's, C's & Sox
 
Looch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Gilford, NH
Country: United States
Posts: 2,864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RetiredUser View Post
Anyone want to KickStart a new hockey league?
I heard Mcmahon already has the XHL in the works.

Looch is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:09 PM
  #211
Pie O My
Registered User
 
Pie O My's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Shawmut Center
Country: Armenia
Posts: 7,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhamBamCam8 View Post
Would love for this to end like Hostess and the employees lose their jobs for good and the business to go under permanently.....Idiots.

3.2 billion right? 1.6 billion to each side... figure out how it's handed out and move on.
got no problem with that at this point, problem is we have no "Little Debbie" alternative.

Pie O My is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:10 PM
  #212
WBC8
Registered User
 
WBC8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: HFL 4 Life
Country: United States
Posts: 34,568
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to WBC8
Quote:
Originally Posted by RetiredUser View Post
Anyone want to KickStart a new hockey league?
If I was a billionarie, I would start up an "Original 6" and sign the best of the best and have a season like the old days,, 16 games vs each opponent.

WBC8 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:14 PM
  #213
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
First of I hope you don't take this post the wrong way...

I admire the effort that you put into it and that you like to look at all the facts and analyze them. You do a good job at it. However, here is my problem. First off, you use Forbes. Their numbers aren't accurate. They are close, but not close enough and far enough off that it skews the numbers. I can't tell you by how much, but the Mods know they can message me at anytime and will vouch for it.

But more importantly, and while the post above addresses it slightly, I go back to your post on page 5 with the six teams you mention.

I see it like this: Some fans come here for information or to try and understand what information they are getting someplace else in hopes that someone here can explain it. And while you go into great depth, your only giving part of the analyzing you are doing - sort of the one that meets your argument. Again, you address it in the post I quoted, but nowhere near to the extent of your post on page 5.

I'm really pressed for time, so I'll give a quick shot at it:

6 teams lost money (your words based on Forbes - but i disagree with that), but I'll stick to your 6.

All six of the teams increased their spending on player salaries. All with the exception of St Louis (and only because of the uncertainty with the ownership situation) increased in attendance.

All but Columbus ( who started to move out salary when all was said and done) saw an increase in on ice performance over the previous year. St Louis and Florida saw 22 point increases, Colorado 20 Islanders 6 and Phoenix was stagnant but went further into the playoffs where they generated more $$.

That's a pretty major improvement and it showed at the gates. Now, you can't turn around a franchise in one season. Keep those improvements for 2, 3 season's and what happens?

On ice performance has a lot to do with how the team fairs at the box office. And on ice performance is directly related to spending money to attract players.

We know the two sides aren't far off on revenue sharing - they are close. But it's not the only solution.

I know you're a proponent of a fixed lower floor. But that is not the answer either. The disparity between the larger revenue generating markets and the smaller ones in terms of on ice product widens in that case, making the richer teams the better on ice product and the poorer teams the worse and thereby lower attendance and even less revenue.

Part of the problem is that the cap went up too fast. No one expected revenues to climb as fast as they did. But the biggest problem is that the players share went up with the revenues increase, not the actual dollars, but the percentage of revenues.

Had that not increased, we wouldn't be in near the mess we are in now.

Wish I had more time
No problem at all. You get the issues and numbers more than most on here so I welcome any discussion and criticism. As for Forbes I have to use the numbers that I have access to and that is what everyone else is using to claim 18 owners are losing money. Do you say you can't tell me how much Forbes is off because you don't know or because of your job? I would like to know the real numbers.

Fans do come here for information and they are getting a lot more misinformation from other posters. I give much more accurate & complete information on the numbers & issues (based on available data) than they are getting from others. Are most pro owner people presenting both sides?

There are points that I have barely or have never mentioned that enhances my stance further as well.

1. New TV contract. I believe approximately $50M more/year for the owners (and players at 50/50).

2. The other revenue streams that owners leverage their teams into. This isn't an owners primary business usually. Some (many?) have leveraged their teams into cable deals or also owning a 2nd franchise which sometimes comes in the deals. Huzienga when he owned the Panthers started a Panther Holdings stock. Those are ways I know that owners have made more money off their teams. I'm sure there are more.

3. Since these guys are generally billionaires and have other businesses; anyone that has more debt than needed both shows a worse profit/higher loss than they need to and isn't really losing as much as they show. Here is why - If they are keeping their cash in other investments while taking on debt to own a hockey franchise they are costing themselves income on hockey but making it up somewhere else. They can then take tax write offs on hockey, cry poor to the cities and players so they can keep taking money from them every CBA that is up.

So those teams increased spending - kind of had to some because of the floor anyway. That helped them win so they did better at the gate. You ask what happens in year 2 and 3. Well, to me I think they would make more money/lose less money. I think that is what you are getting at. So that is a point for the owners side - they had to increase spending to make more money - but isn't it also a point for my side that they will make more in following years? So people are looking at a 1 year snapshot saying teams are losing money when if they extended out 3 years; maybe they wouldn't lose money.

You say on ice performance is directly related to spending money to attract players which helps at the gate. Tell that to Calgary, Toronto & Columbus. 7 teams made the playoffs that spent less than Columbus. Spending helps but isn't a direct relation to winning and getting more at the gate. You can spend a lot and still suck and you can spend a little and make the playoffs.

Revenue sharing isn't the only solution. Neither is taking everything from the players. I think where the owners are at now on revenue sharing is good.

I just think the fixed floor at a % of the cap needs to be there to give an owner the option to lower his payroll. Not many are going to use it and it does make it harder to compete. But you clear salary for a year (get some picks/prospects in return), get back to profitability, suck, get a good draft pick and try to improve your team through youth and some smarter investments.

So player share went up and that is the main problem. That means that 54% worked well. So why do we need 50% and take away all contracting rights? Phoenix averaged only a $9M loss in the first 3 years of the CBA, while sucking and paying Gretzky like $8M/year. Now if the worst market in hockey (debate for another day as I think hockey can work here) can be that close to profitability while being run in that fashion; that shows that things aren't as bad as they seem. Get the team an owner (attendance will increase), cut down to 50/50 with players make whole, new TV contract, a little more revenue sharing and the worst team is profitable.

My argument isn't to keep everything the way it is. You have seen my proposal which is basically what the players want except I structured it with more deferred revenue, went 10 years, and changed some contracting issues. Even if they don't go 10 years you need to project the numbers after make whole is done. Is the players share ever going back up? I doubt it. So let me ask you some questions.

Why won't my proposal work?
Why won't the players offer on the money issue as is work? 50/50 with $592M make whole instead of the owners $211M.
If the league and teams are so bad off why has Bettman's salary increased so much and why is he still allowed to be on the job in these negotiations?
Why hasn't the NHL lowered the price on Phoenix to sell them or increased the price and moved them? Huge turnaround in the numbers doing this.
Why would Leipold lose $70M on Nashville, decide to buy another team, claim to lose money again, only to spend an additional $13M?

It is obvious to me that owners are some combination of - doing well despite their claims, don't care or don't know how to make money on NHL teams.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:14 PM
  #214
Looch
B's, C's & Sox
 
Looch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Gilford, NH
Country: United States
Posts: 2,864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhamBamCam8 View Post
If I was a billionarie, I would start up an "Original 6" and sign the best of the best and have a season like the old days,, 16 games vs each opponent.

That would be somewhat epic. I would pay dearly to watch it. Let me know when you start taking season ticket deposits.

Looch is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:17 PM
  #215
Lost Horizons
Crying Waiting Hopin
 
Lost Horizons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Everywhere
Country: United States
Posts: 7,944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RetiredUser View Post
Anyone want to KickStart a new hockey league?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Looch View Post
I heard Mcmahon already has the XHL in the works.
Bikini Hockey League Will Be Just Like Lingerie Football on Skates

Lost Horizons is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:26 PM
  #216
Looch
B's, C's & Sox
 
Looch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Gilford, NH
Country: United States
Posts: 2,864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost Horizons View Post

Damn, inlined skates. I was so excited when I thought it was gonna be on ice.

Looch is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:36 PM
  #217
Roll 4 Lines
Gitchyasum!
 
Roll 4 Lines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bear Country
Country: United States
Posts: 5,664
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogberry View Post
At this point, that would no longer bother me, I think. Trash the league and the PA and start over. Screw it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pie O My View Post
got no problem with that at this point, problem is we have no "Little Debbie" alternative.
Speak for yourself....

Roll 4 Lines is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:47 PM
  #218
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
OOG - Let me put this scenario out there that I think is realistic. And bear with me on the numbers. I have to use what I have access to and what everyone else is using in Forbes.

Let's say the owners get mostly what they want. 50/50 with their make whole. That gives them about $285M more per year than now (5% growth, 10 years).

So they go from $126M in cash profit, $493M in profit and franchise value gain to $411M in profit and $778 in cash and franchise value gain (even assuming more profits don't lead to higher franchise values). Add the new TV contract. $461M in profit and $828M in cash and FV gain.

Now here is the kicker. They move Phoenix. Instead of $25M losses they have a franchise generating $10M in profit. Another $35M & $20M in franchise value for the owners. They get the one time relo fee. $60M
They add 2 teams. One time franchise fee - $200M total? 2 new teams making $10M in cash and $20M in franchise gain.

Here are the total new numbers.

$260M? one time fees
$516M cash profit
$943M in cash and franchise values gain.
Split between 30 owners. Average of $17.2M per owner in cash and $31.43M in cash and FV gain. Per Year without including one time fees! Players' average salaries (5% gain compounded over 10 years) would be $3.91M. And 50/50 is fair? The owners will make each make 4 to 8 times the players who bring in the revenue.

The players are going to wonder why they had to give up anything at all.

And people wonder why this country is in trouble. It is because the rich overspend their budgets and then keep taking from the poor. In this scenario the owners are the rich and players are the poor. Obviously relatively speaking.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:57 PM
  #219
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,848
vCash: 500
there was a post here a few days ago... cant find it now but someone listed the top 12 salaries from before the cba and now... and wanted to make a point that player salaries havent raised enough

i should have commented at the time. REMEMBER there was no upper limit on top salaries before this last cba. So the very top salaries were CRAZY. Doug Weight was getting 9 mill. Guerin and Holik were getting 9 mill. The very top salaries for somewhat mediocre ufa that hit the jackpot was CRAZY

so the new cba put in controls on the very top salaries. It isnt a surprise that the salaries of the top 10-20-even 40 guys hasnt raised much.

a far more telling study would be contracts 200-250... or 200-400... how have they changed?

i mean think about it... no one cares if tom cruise or julia roberts gets 20 mill for a movie cause their name will sell tickets. but if the guy playing pedestrian number 3 gets 1 mill cause his screen time was 1/20th what tom cruise was... then the movie is doomed to fail.

its when people that dont sell the tickets or merchandise go to an arbitrator and get 1/3 the contract that the superstar does cause they score 1/3 the number of goals... that this entire economic modle breaks down.

there arent 200 guys in the NHL that actually sell tickets but there are 200 guys making over 4 mill a year right... this is where the problem is

so a study of the top 12 contracts from 2006 to 2012 is rather meaningless. i wish i could get access to the numbers and show people what the contracts of guys 200-250 changed to show everyone what the real problem is... but an attempt to get these numbers has failed so all im left with is this reply

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is online now  
Old
11-16-2012, 03:05 PM
  #220
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,848
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
OOG - Let me put this scenario out there that I think is realistic. And bear with me on the numbers. I have to use what I have access to and what everyone else is using in Forbes.

Let's say the owners get mostly what they want. 50/50 with their make whole. That gives them about $285M more per year than now (5% growth, 10 years).

So they go from $126M in cash profit, $493M in profit and franchise value gain to $411M in profit and $778 in cash and franchise value gain (even assuming more profits don't lead to higher franchise values). Add the new TV contract. $461M in profit and $828M in cash and FV gain.

Now here is the kicker. They move Phoenix. Instead of $25M losses they have a franchise generating $10M in profit. Another $35M & $20M in franchise value for the owners. They get the one time relo fee. $60M
They add 2 teams. One time franchise fee - $200M total? 2 new teams making $10M in cash and $20M in franchise gain.

Here are the total new numbers.

$260M? one time fees
$516M cash profit
$943M in cash and franchise values gain.
Split between 30 owners. Average of $17.2M per owner in cash and $31.43M in cash and FV gain. Per Year without including one time fees! Players' average salaries (5% gain compounded over 10 years) would be $3.91M. And 50/50 is fair? The owners will make each make 4 to 8 times the players who bring in the revenue.

The players are going to wonder why they had to give up anything at all.

And people wonder why this country is in trouble. It is because the rich overspend their budgets and then keep taking from the poor. In this scenario the owners are the rich and players are the poor. Obviously relatively speaking.
i think the main issue anyone might take with you... is your continued position that owners are overspending their budgets even when they are way under the cap floor... and this is the problem

your position has an inherient flaw. you are saying that alot of teams have zero chance of making a profit if they dont bottom feed. You are saying it as if... this is the best option.

you are saying its better the players continue to make an average of over 2.5 mill a year instead of giving the bottom teams a chance to be competitive and stay in business and not lose money

you are actually saying that these teams do lose money even with all the mumble jumble of the franchise value increases... and do it over an extended period of time showing its the norm... and you are saying its ok

its not really your numbers i take a huge problem with... cause i dont have access to the numbers either... so we none of us have access to the numbers... we all have to guess...

but your conclusion is the problem i have... why do you keep saying that its ok these teams lose money and... if they spend less they wouldnt?

because... with the cutback in the new cba... they would spend less... and thus would solve this problem you claim they have... and yet they wouldnt suffer as big of a competitive disadvantage as you want them to.

is that your intention? do you want competitive disadvantage? i think thats the issue id have with your suggestions.

me... i dont mind it... ill be controversial here... i dont mind competitive disadvantage. i personally favor a luxery cap. the owners dont... but i do.

i dont mind a competitive disadvantage... but you dont seem to be saying that... and yet you are... so i think theres a logic disconnect in your agument.

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is online now  
Old
11-16-2012, 03:19 PM
  #221
Roll 4 Lines
Gitchyasum!
 
Roll 4 Lines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bear Country
Country: United States
Posts: 5,664
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
OOG - Let me put this scenario out there that I think is realistic. And bear with me on the numbers. I have to use what I have access to and what everyone else is using in Forbes.

Let's say the owners get mostly what they want. 50/50 with their make whole. That gives them about $285M more per year than now (5% growth, 10 years).

So they go from $126M in cash profit, $493M in profit and franchise value gain to $411M in profit and $778 in cash and franchise value gain (even assuming more profits don't lead to higher franchise values). Add the new TV contract. $461M in profit and $828M in cash and FV gain.

Now here is the kicker. They move Phoenix. Instead of $25M losses they have a franchise generating $10M in profit. Another $35M & $20M in franchise value for the owners. They get the one time relo fee. $60M
They add 2 teams. One time franchise fee - $200M total? 2 new teams making $10M in cash and $20M in franchise gain.

Here are the total new numbers.

$260M? one time fees
$516M cash profit
$943M in cash and franchise values gain.
Split between 30 owners. Average of $17.2M per owner in cash and $31.43M in cash and FV gain. Per Year without including one time fees! Players' average salaries (5% gain compounded over 10 years) would be $3.91M. And 50/50 is fair? The owners will make each make 4 to 8 times the players who bring in the revenue.

The players are going to wonder why they had to give up anything at all.

And people wonder why this country is in trouble. It is because the rich overspend their budgets and then keep taking from the poor. In this scenario the owners are the rich and players are the poor. Obviously relatively speaking.
Seems to me the players are the rich, the owners are the uber-riche, and the paying customers are the poor.

Roll 4 Lines is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 03:37 PM
  #222
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,848
vCash: 500
as i listen to talk radio here today... ive heard a number of call in people and even hosts continue to say something that is just not right.

they say the owners are hurting themselves by risking the 3.3 billion revenues to fall. they are saying that the owners must be stupid cause a lost season would result in the 3.3 billion revenues falling.

the reality is... that it isnt great that revenues might fall BUT IT IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT that revenues and costs are brought into a managable relationship. If revenues are high... but COSTS are higher... then its not good.

revenues would fall if theres a lockout... the owners understand this... they arent stupid. none of us are educating them when we bring it up. they already know it. But its not them hurt by it

the players compensations is 100% tied to revenues. The players have no costs. So the players are ABSOLUTELY hurt by revenues going down

the owners are ONLY hurt if costs dont go down too.

I hope this explains it. The owners intend to get costs down enough... that the loss in revenues WONT hurt them. In the meantime the players will be hurt

so... that explains why this is a lockout and not a strike. You dont have to agree with the owners but not understanding them is kind of... difficult. So this explains why they are ok with a lockout and potential revenue drop. It will be dealt with by the cost reduction they are insisting on.

this lockout wont end without a cost reduction. Sorry, but its their ball. and they are taking it and going home. No one here needs to like it... but its not that difficult to understand if we actually open are eyes

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is online now  
Old
11-16-2012, 03:40 PM
  #223
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
I have to give you props, you research like the dickens when your opinion in challenged. You have to appreciate the effort, fine post. A couple of major issues however.

First and foremost. Owners have issue with what's happening in the present and what's likely to happen if things continue on their present course. Not what happened in 2005 when the cap was half what it is now. You're using the entire lifespan of the CBA to show that only 6 teams lost money during that time.

And others are using a one year time frame which doesn't tell the whole story. Revenues were also about half what they are now. The players % only went up from 54% to 57%.

In 2012 we know that number is now 18 teams that are losing money. Do you see a pattern? Now realize regardless of those figures (provided by Forbes) the players want their share of the pot to continue to increase yearly. See the big issue?

1 major issue with this is 18 teams aren't losing money. You have to include franchise value. If I pay $100 for something. Spend $10 per year for maintenance (my loss) for 5 years and sell it for $200 did I make or lose money? I made $50.

If you're happy with an NHL such as we had pre-2004 (and now have again), where certain teams afford all the talent while other teams can't afford to keep their own players then these numbers should make you extremely happy. I personally don't want that, but it seems to be what you're advocating here?

The cap has made the NHL competitive and still is this year. We aren't at pre-2004. I'm not advocating for getting rid of a cap. More on my position below.

snip...

We aren't talking about screwing over NHL players here, 8-9mill should still be considered a reasonable maximum salary for a guy who plays hockey... no? Surely they could eek out some kind of meager existence on that salary, I know it would be tough, but can we not chalk it up to the sacrifices one has to make for the betterment of the sport? Sure that means a guy like Crosby may be only able to buy fifteen Ferrari 599 GTO Coupe's this year instead of twenty, and one multimillion dollar home instead of three or four but he'd scrape by. OK, that last bit is overly sarcastic and I apologize, but I just couldn't resist. As AOF stated, the money these guys makes is absolutely filthy and still would be if those figures were cut in half even.

Nothing wrong with sarcastic but no one has to be worried about the owners because they can only buy 4 private jets instead of 5 either. The players have offered to give up a lot to people much richer than they are. That should be enough.
Some answers above.

First - thanks for a great post to you as well for reasonably being able to discuss the issues.
Some of your stuff is snipped to keep this shorter. I have addressed some things in my posts to OOG.
I think we are closer on things than you think. I made a full proposal in the last couple of pages of one of these threads. I think it was 2 threads ago. You should check it out if you can find it. It was based off each offer and was a compromise on issues.

I hit on a lot of issues over 2 posts but I'll summarize quickly:

10 year agreement.
50/50 immediately as the players proposed provided they are paid $592M to make whole. I proposed it was paid out over 3 to 7 years. Owners choice on how to pay out.
More revenue sharing. I think I said up to $250M not all of which I think will be needed.
Tiered contract limits. I think I went up to 10 years for max limit.
Restrictions on variance - I think I used the owners 5%. I don't want to see Philly-Nashville scenarios.
There was more including a Tim Thomas rule

I don't want the same CBA, but the owners can be plenty profitable with the players' offers either gradual or their 50/50 immediately with some tweaking of the other issues.

The sides are very close on money they just have different ideas how to get there.

I don't think the owners should be guaranteed a profit no matter what they do.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 04:16 PM
  #224
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
i think the main issue anyone might take with you... is your continued position that owners are overspending their budgets even when they are way under the cap floor... and this is the problem

I think you mean cap. No one is under the floor.

your position has an inherient flaw. you are saying that alot of teams have zero chance of making a profit if they dont bottom feed. You are saying it as if... this is the best option.

Most only need to cut a little bit not actually go all the way to the floor. With the players proposal they can actually spend as they have been and be competitive. Most teams are within 10 million of each other. 7 different cup winners and 12 different finalists over the CBA.

you are saying its better the players continue to make an average of over 2.5 mill a year instead of giving the bottom teams a chance to be competitive and stay in business and not lose money

Well the players will actually make more as revenues go up. I'm not saying at all what you think I'm saying. You can find my full proposal in one of the other threads. It is summed up in my post to Kaoz above. I'm in favor of 50/50 provided the owners pay for the full $592 shortfall. I'm in favor of some contracting issues the owners want.

you are actually saying that these teams do lose money even with all the mumble jumble of the franchise value increases... and do it over an extended period of time showing its the norm... and you are saying its ok

Yes some teams did lose money. Franchise value isn't mumble jumble. It has to be taken into account. See my $100 example in post to Kaoz.

its not really your numbers i take a huge problem with... cause i dont have access to the numbers either... so we none of us have access to the numbers... we all have to guess...

but your conclusion is the problem i have... why do you keep saying that its ok these teams lose money and... if they spend less they wouldnt?

I don't think it is ok they lose money (although I certainly don't care that a billionaire who can't run his team right does). I think the players proposal is enough for the owners. And yes if they spent less as the players proposal would help them with they would make more money. Spending isn't a direct correlation with winning although it certainly helps.

because... with the cutback in the new cba... they would spend less... and thus would solve this problem you claim they have... and yet they wouldnt suffer as big of a competitive disadvantage as you want them to.

is that your intention? do you want competitive disadvantage? i think thats the issue id have with your suggestions.

me... i dont mind it... ill be controversial here... i dont mind competitive disadvantage. i personally favor a luxery cap. the owners dont... but i do.

i dont mind a competitive disadvantage... but you dont seem to be saying that... and yet you are... so i think theres a logic disconnect in your agument.

My argument actually makes more teams competitive.
Thanks for keeping your posts shorter. It makes it easier for me to keep mine shorter and for everyone to read.

My argument is there are many other ways to make all teams profitable and keep them competitive than to just take from the players. A luxury tax is another way to make them profitable but not as competitive. Obviously at least some owners don't want that. I believe some would. The players have given enough and are getting very little out of the deal.

I think you missed it at the end of the last thread, but I addressed what seems to be your biggest argument for the owners. Others have addressed it as well. The taxpayer issue is a non-issue and should not be an argument in the owners favor. Owners (not players) are going to ask for that no matter what they are paying the players. Voters get to say whether they approve of paying for these stadiums. The stadiums and teams also provide revenue and jobs for the city not only for sports teams but other events the stadium can hold.

None of that will change in any new CBA and unless you can show hard numbers that it hurts the cities and taxpayers, and how it is the players fault then it is not a valid argument for the owners.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 04:27 PM
  #225
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,848
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
Thanks for keeping your posts shorter. It makes it easier for me to keep mine shorter and for everyone to read.

My argument is there are many other ways to make all teams profitable and keep them competitive than to just take from the players. A luxury tax is another way to make them profitable but not as competitive. Obviously at least some owners don't want that. I believe some would. The players have given enough and are getting very little out of the deal.

I think you missed it at the end of the last thread, but I addressed what seems to be your biggest argument for the owners. Others have addressed it as well. The taxpayer issue is a non-issue and should not be an argument in the owners favor. Owners (not players) are going to ask for that no matter what they are paying the players. Voters get to say whether they approve of paying for these stadiums. The stadiums and teams also provide revenue and jobs for the city not only for sports teams but other events the stadium can hold.

None of that will change in any new CBA and unless you can show hard numbers that it hurts the cities and taxpayers, and how it is the players fault then it is not a valid argument for the owners.
taxpayer issue defintiely isnt an issue in favor of the owners... but IS an issue in favor of getting the players under control

the owner get the tax dollars... the players dont...

but this has a very real effect on the argument. if the owners cant make money with the tax handouts then how on earth can they survive if those tax handouts get cut off?

first step... get the costs under control

second step... continue to try to get real sources of revenue

and asap step... get the taxpayers off the hook

i guess some of your arguments though... dont follow common sense business practices. there is something to be said about spending money to make money that you give no creedence to at all. there is also something about us living in a democracy and not a cummunist state that makes revenue sharing a bitter pill to swallow.

your solution might work if eveyone was willing to agree to it... but i take them for their word that they arent willing.

so that brings us back to their solution... and the players... and which one has any chance in hell of working

the owners do have lots of options... and are willing to do a lockout. the players have no options but might be willign to accept a lockout???

so ultimately we might get a lockout... at some point the owners will win this fight. I wish us fans werent caught in the damage in the meantime... and taxpayers are getting screwed cause we have no voice at the table

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is online now  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:38 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.