HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part VII: The Last Waltz "Cut the sheet & drop the puck!"

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-19-2012, 04:19 AM
  #126
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by in the hall View Post
Going back to this post about the Florida Panthers raking in revenues, think this edit in that story needs to be pointed out.. see quote I pasted under

Essentially the revenues could be a biproduct of all the other events and properties under that umbrella, so the article really isn't an accurate representation of how much money is being made or lost by the Panthers. Revenues from say a concert are going to be big versus revenues over a game - think of the costs in operating a team, like travel, hotels, etc those aren't incurred when you open your doors up and have a band playing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Sure seems like this "journalist" was so quick to nail Panther ownership to the wall, that the main piece of evidence proved to be totally and laughably incorrect.
You are definitely missing the point with the article. Just look at the title.

"Why do billionaires keep buying teams that lose money?"

Nobody is saying that the Panthers, isolated as an entity, is making money. What the reporter is saying is that if you own a pro team, you can get a favorable deal on an arena, you get a business that can cover basically a very big part of that arena, and with the open slots in the arena you can make money.

IE, what the article is saying is that its not charity for them to own a pro team.

The journalist asks himself this question:
Quote:
The owners, whether as companies or individuals, are extremely wealthy. Yet many teams reportedly lose money every year, and with few exceptions even the profitable clubs donít make that much money. Why would phenomenally successful men sink money into a black hole like that?Is it simply a case of viewing hockey teams as luxuries where they can afford to bleed red a little?
And the answer is absolutely undeniable, even the owners of such badly run org as the Panthers, during horrible financial times, makes money from owning the Panthers. Not directly from the team, but he can own an arena due to owning the Panthers and when adding up all numbers he makse a profit.

Ola is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 08:21 AM
  #127
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
You are definitely missing the point with the article. Just look at the title.

"Why do billionaires keep buying teams that lose money?"

Nobody is saying that the Panthers, isolated as an entity, is making money. What the reporter is saying is that if you own a pro team, you can get a favorable deal on an arena, you get a business that can cover basically a very big part of that arena, and with the open slots in the arena you can make money.

IE, what the article is saying is that its not charity for them to own a pro team.

The journalist asks himself this question:


And the answer is absolutely undeniable, even the owners of such badly run org as the Panthers, during horrible financial times, makes money from owning the Panthers. Not directly from the team, but he can own an arena due to owning the Panthers and when adding up all numbers he makse a profit.
So, its fair to compare apples and oranges? This CBA is about hockey related revenue, period. The reason these owners have become successful and able to afford hockey teams is because they are able to compartmentalize their ventures. This negotiation is about hockey operations - whats the point of bringing total arena revenue into it when it has next to nothing to do with the NHL's CBA? Its sour grapes, and its a sad way to view things to be honest.

Its the equivalent of writing an equally inept article going after players' endorsement deals.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 08:31 AM
  #128
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
From the Bill Simmons article:

Quote:
We should mention that, in a vacuum, he's correct about this particular lockout: The league's financial model (already a mess because we have too many NHL teams, which is 100 percent Bettman's fault, but whatever) can't be sustained with such meager television revenue.
Game, set, match, union backers.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 08:38 AM
  #129
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
From the Bill Simmons article:



Game, set, match, union backers.
That is what stuck out to me in the article. Im as unhappy as anyone regarding Bettman's actions as commissioner over the past 20 years.

But this situation needs to be addressed in a vacuum if hockey is going to be played this season.

The problem is that Bettman can hide under this excuse everytime a financial change to the league needs to be made.

"Forget the past - this needs to be done now"

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 09:13 AM
  #130
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,851
vCash: 500
I saw Brian Burke on 46th between 5th and 6th. He has a stache. Movember. He was headed towards NHL offices. I heard him on Fan590 tell Millard,Kyper and MacLean 7-10 days ago its been a while since he attended a meeting. He is here today. Its early too. Meeting is not taking place until late this afternoon or tonight.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 09:17 AM
  #131
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
Speaking of kool aid, some of our posters must be NHL accountants. 54% to the players for most ofbthe deal with 57% as a threshold bonus. Now its 60% of revenues to the players. If you need to exaggerate to vilify the players, maybe they aren't the bad guy. They were forced into a 54% cap, accept 50% now. The league dictates the number. How is the blame on them?
I can't speak for others, but I'm not "blaming" the players for the league's current financial mess.

But the players need to understand that the league is in a mess right now.

And the mess is cleaned up, in large part, by paying the players less and capping some of the other contract things.

So the terms the owners want to impose in the CBA is really one of the main ways the league cleans up it's mess.

I blame the players for not understanding that and not being more reasonable with their demands. The players are insisting on a compensation package (or at least were insisting) that is out of line with the rest of the functional sports leagues. The NFL and NBA specifically, both have contract limits and neither pays the players over 50% of revenue.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 09:19 AM
  #132
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
That is what stuck out to me in the article. Im as unhappy as anyone regarding Bettman's actions as commissioner over the past 20 years.

But this situation needs to be addressed in a vacuum if hockey is going to be played this season.

The problem is that Bettman can hide under this excuse everytime a financial change to the league needs to be made.

"Forget the past - this needs to be done now"
Sure. I buy that Bettman needs to go.

But the players need to acquiesce to contract limits and only getting 50% of revenue.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 09:45 AM
  #133
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
I can't speak for others, but I'm not "blaming" the players for the league's current financial mess.

But the players need to understand that the league is in a mess right now.

And the mess is cleaned up, in large part, by paying the players less and capping some of the other contract things.

So the terms the owners want to impose in the CBA is really one of the main ways the league cleans up it's mess.

I blame the players for not understanding that and not being more reasonable with their demands. The players are insisting on a compensation package (or at least were insisting) that is out of line with the rest of the functional sports leagues. The NFL and NBA specifically, both have contract limits and neither pays the players over 50% of revenue.
How are the players not getting it? since day 1 they have conceded certain teams are losing money. They have also asked, "If this CBA is broken, lets work together to find a model that works." The NHL said no, give us more money. Can you see how it bothers the players? The only solution this league has is take answers out of the union's share. Anyone can see that 50% is a bandaid. Owners circumvented the rules (the rules a season was sacrificed for), they will do it again.

Regardless, the players will get to 50% as long as they protect inked deals. They will agree to more restrictions. Right now we are hung up on how much make whole covers and just how oppressive contracts will be. I don't really see what the union needs to understand.

Again, the owners issue is they can't make a profit. Yet their loses are due to expansion and southern markets, decisions made 100% by owners. In what industry do owners get a mulligan TWICE for bad decisions. The owners have no interest in the proper economic model: revenue sharing. Bettman wants the NFL model which is based on salaries covered by a massive tv deal. We need the MLB model, which works with have/have nots. We have the "pirates" of the league that need massive handouts. But we can't have the big markets handicapped by the bottom feeders... parity is a luxury for a healthy NHL, not a necessity.

If the league's model would fix the problems I could get behind their ridiculous demands. But they don't/won't work in 3-4 seasons. The bottom teams will have massive payrolls and the same earnings. Even without seeing the model, history tells me Bettman will fail. He announced himself the winner following the first two lockouts... he got the deal he wanted. He lacks foresight (27/7, no term limit, national tv deal strategy, expansion, the south). And this guy is in charge again and he only needs 7 teams to back his stupidity. 23 successful businessmen are overruled by the 8 worst business minds in the sport.

Bottom line is we lost a year of hockey so the rich teams could get richer. He wanted 30 healthy franchises and he's, according to his opinion, worse off then the last time. How is anyone in his corner or in favor of any idea he pushes? And his solution is the same thing! The owners will cheat, teams will drown.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 09:46 AM
  #134
Jabroni
The People's Champ
 
Jabroni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 6,592
vCash: 500
"@Russostrib: Not sure dynamic of today's #NHL #NHLPA session, but #mnwild owner Craig Leipold not expected to attend."

Jabroni is online now  
Old
11-19-2012, 09:48 AM
  #135
RGY
(Jagr68NYR94Leetch)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,132
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jabroni1994 View Post
"@Russostrib: Not sure dynamic of today's #NHL #NHLPA session, but #mnwild owner Craig Leipold not expected to attend."
Good he's a jerk off anyway.

RGY is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 09:54 AM
  #136
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
The NFL and NBA specifically, both have contract limits and neither pays the players over 50% of revenue.
When imposing their last CBA, both the NBA and NFL also paid out every dollar of existing contracts. They did not demand that the players take on the burden of paying player contracts. The NHLPA is fine with a 50-50. What they are not fine with is the demand that the players start to pay parts of other players salaries.

True Blue is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 10:11 AM
  #137
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
How are the players not getting it? since day 1 they have conceded certain teams are losing money. They have also asked, "If this CBA is broken, lets work together to find a model that works." The NHL said no, give us more money. Can you see how it bothers the players? The only solution this league has is take answers out of the union's share. Anyone can see that 50% is a bandaid.
This is blatantly false.

The 50/50 is not THE solution but it IS part of the solution. In no way shape or form will the NHL have a healthy, viable league paying out north of 50% to players.

Rev sharing needs to play a roll.

Contract restrictions need to be in place.

Just like the Cap... These things are coming... Weather the players like it or not. I'm not a Bettman fan, not even close. But I want a healthy NHL and these things will help. More than anything I don't want to see another lockout/strike in my lifetime. As unrealistic as that may sound.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 10:27 AM
  #138
in the hall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
When imposing their last CBA, both the NBA and NFL also paid out every dollar of existing contracts. They did not demand that the players take on the burden of paying player contracts. The NHLPA is fine with a 50-50. What they are not fine with is the demand that the players start to pay parts of other players salaries.
Yes but thats a burden the NBA and NFL was willing to absorb because in the NBA, the existing contracts length were 4-5 years? and the NFL obviously contracts are not guaranteed. The NHL would be paying out existing contracts for the next 12 years. In essence that 50/50 would in actuality be 50+ players until that final contract is paid out.

in the hall is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 11:07 AM
  #139
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by in the hall View Post
Yes but thats a burden the NBA and NFL was willing to absorb because in the NBA, the existing contracts length were 4-5 years? and the NFL obviously contracts are not guaranteed. The NHL would be paying out existing contracts for the next 12 years. In essence that 50/50 would in actuality be 50+ players until that final contract is paid out.
12 year contracts are the exception, not the rule, and the owners/gms negotiated those contracts in good faith, supposedly. Most contracts will run out within the next 2 years.

Basically it comes down to this. The owners and players agreed to contracts that would pay the players a certain amount of money (minus a small percentage that could possibly be lost to escrow and is dependent on actual revenue). Now the owners are saying they want to pay those players less than was agreed upon, in some cases, just a few months ago. The players are saying hey, we will accept 50% of revenue as long as current contracts are paid in full. That may mean that it will take 2 or 3 years to get down to 50%, but the league will get what it wants. Increased revenue sharing should help to mitigate losses for small market teams in the interim.

To me, I believe the players view is what the league should go with. That's not to say I'm siding with the players or think they are blameless in all of this, but to me, that seems like a fair deal for both sides. Honor existing contracts and work down to a 50/50 split. Cap future contracts to a 5% difference in salary from year to year without capping contract lengths, which is enough to stop the retirement contracts. Make all 1 way contracts count against the cap (while allowing amnesty buyouts) and get rid of re-entry waivers, so players on 2-way contracts aren't artificially capped at 105k.

The players may balk at the 1 way contracts counting against the cap, but they will like having no cap on 2 way contracts.

GAGLine is online now  
Old
11-19-2012, 12:49 PM
  #140
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
When imposing their last CBA, both the NBA and NFL also paid out every dollar of existing contracts.
Which was fairly easy to do because the drop was not as precipitous, from my recollection.

I don't think the salary cap really went down in the NFL.

In the NHL, the percentage the players were getting was so much higher, the cap has to drop to accomodate that.

Meaning it's hard to find a way to pay current contracts without some sort of other arrangement.

The other solution is freezing the cap in place (therefore all contracts can be honored as is). But the league made it clear that's too steep for them because it would take too long to get to 50%.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 01:28 PM
  #141
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
The drop is preposterous? Do you see how asinine that is? The drop is preposterous but the players don't deserve consideration for coming down a preposterous amount? The arguments against union concessions are preposterous.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 01:28 PM
  #142
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
But the league made it clear that's too steep for them because it would take too long to get to 50%.
That is the league's view. A more pragmatic approach would be to state that getting there in only a couple of years is really not horrible. And instantly lowering it from 57%.

True Blue is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 01:47 PM
  #143
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riche16 View Post
This is blatantly false.

The 50/50 is not THE solution but it IS part of the solution. In no way shape or form will the NHL have a healthy, viable league paying out north of 50% to players.

Rev sharing needs to play a roll.

Contract restrictions need to be in place.

Just like the Cap... These things are coming... Weather the players like it or not. I'm not a Bettman fan, not even close. But I want a healthy NHL and these things will help. More than anything I don't want to see another lockout/strike in my lifetime. As unrealistic as that may sound.
Nope. No its not blatantly false. If a team can't afford $45m in payroll, then they can't afford it. Some rev sharing and a bigger cut will only help for so long. Sustained growth and moving teams to viable markets will surely push the floor above $50m. Teams will struggle to keep up. Math is not blatantly false.

Owners cheated the cba last time, they'll do it again. Restrictions, they have them. They work, NYR as the prime example. What they need is restraint, NYR as the prime example... both ways.

"Weather" people want to hear it or not doesn't change facts.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 02:47 PM
  #144
Glen Teflon Sather
Like A Boss
 
Glen Teflon Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Bloomfield, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,891
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Glen Teflon Sather
Versteeg really blasted Bettman and Daly, if anyone can post what he said I'd appreciate it.

Glen Teflon Sather is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 02:49 PM
  #145
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,654
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
"Weather" people want to hear it or not doesn't change facts.
I find weather people rarely know what they're talking about. lol

broadwayblue is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 02:49 PM
  #146
NYRFAN218
Mac Truck
 
NYRFAN218's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4th Line Grinder View Post
Versteeg really blasted Bettman and Daly, if anyone can post what he said I'd appreciate it.
TSN Radio ‏@TSN1050Radio
Kris Versteeg with @HayesTSN and @jamiemclennan29: "You gotta cut out the cancers...you have to look at Bill Daly and Bettman...(cont....)

TSN Radio ‏@TSN1050Radio
"They've been polluting this game for far too long" - Kris Versteeg on Bill Daly and Gary Bettman

Also....

Louis Jean ‏@LouisJean_TVA
Some of NHLers skating this morning in Montreal wore "Puck Gary" ballcaps. They are NOT sanctionned by the @NHLPA.

And on the actual negotiations...

Chris Johnston ‏@reporterchris
Tonight's bargaining session betwen the NHL and NHLPA is expected to start around 7 p.m.

__________________
http://hfboards.com/image.php?u=53946&type=sigpic&dateline=1320361610
NYRFAN218 is online now  
Old
11-19-2012, 02:52 PM
  #147
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
So, its fair to compare apples and oranges? This CBA is about hockey related revenue, period. The reason these owners have become successful and able to afford hockey teams is because they are able to compartmentalize their ventures. This negotiation is about hockey operations - whats the point of bringing total arena revenue into it when it has next to nothing to do with the NHL's CBA? Its sour grapes, and its a sad way to view things to be honest.

Its the equivalent of writing an equally inept article going after players' endorsement deals.
The point is that the NHL has basically been crying poverty for those teams who are in trouble. The truth is that, while the hockey operations making a profit is desirable, it isn't necessary in many many cases. The article is using incomplete information to make the point, but it is definitely something that many of us have suspected for a while. For some owners, the hockey operations are a profitable entity. For other owners, the hockey operations are a loss leader that leads to income elsewhere. In the Panthers case, the Arena Operating (AOC) arm of Sunshine Sports (SSE) made $89m in profit over 10 years from 99-08. If Forbes' numbers are accurate, that's enough for SSE to have made $15m-20m over that time. We are only talking about $1.5m-$2m per year, which isn't all that much. But it is a profit.

This lockout is not about creating profits for the owners. It is about increasing them. And that's all well and good and within their rights to do, but articles like this provide some clarity through the smoke screen the league has been putting up during this process.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 03:07 PM
  #148
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
The drop is preposterous? Do you see how asinine that is? The drop is preposterous but the players don't deserve consideration for coming down a preposterous amount? The arguments against union concessions are preposterous.
Reading comprehension time... I said "precipitous."

That is not the same word as "preposterous" and has a completely different meaning.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 03:10 PM
  #149
GWOW
Two Pucks, One Cup
 
GWOW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 14,479
vCash: 500
This lockout is like a vacation for the players. Recchi's partlt right. The players can get to get paid to play in Europe and no media hassle. There's no sense of urgency for a reason. They know that if they rush back and have a short camp with 4-games a week schedule, they'll be injured all over the place.

The players will get their money. They always do. I don't want to hear sob stories about these stars in Europe getting fat and paid.

GWOW is offline  
Old
11-19-2012, 03:13 PM
  #150
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
Which was fairly easy to do because the drop was not as precipitous, from my recollection.

I don't think the salary cap really went down in the NFL.

In the NHL, the percentage the players were getting was so much higher, the cap has to drop to accomodate that.

Meaning it's hard to find a way to pay current contracts without some sort of other arrangement.

The other solution is freezing the cap in place (therefore all contracts can be honored as is). But the league made it clear that's too steep for them because it would take too long to get to 50%.
The NFL and NBA players were both at 57%. The NBA drops to 49-51% depending on various conditions. The NFLs split varies from revenue source to revenue source, but the reason why the Cap didn't drop is that the league stopped taking $1B off the top of the revenue stream.


Last edited by Tawnos: 11-19-2012 at 03:19 PM.
Tawnos 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 10:13 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.