HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Good article from Darren Rovell

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-11-2005, 10:29 AM
  #51
likea
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
That's far from proven anywhere. The Caps until this past season, when they sold everyone off, had plenty of people to go see: Gonchar, Bondra, Kolzig, Jagr, and have been a good franchise for most of the last 20 years.

Other than Jagr's first year, when they had a big jump in attendance, the Caps have always had huge trouble drawing fans.

Even during the playoffs if the play the Flyers or Penguins, their building gets over run by the opponents fans.

I bet alot of Caps fans would argue the point you state above, that the Caps have been a good franchise for the last 20 years

they were on the right track until the screwed their fanbase and got Jagr...

they were building a winner, not with skill but with hard working players...Jagr changed all that and they raised ticket prices to boot

so they became a worse team and raised ticket prices...ya, a good franchise

they have also been losing 20-30 million every year since Ted took over...a good franchise?????

they now traded everyone, which pisses off the fans you do have...but a good franchise????

and its been proven in the NFL

check out Cincy or Seattle as examples

likea is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 10:32 AM
  #52
shnagle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
well, its not like the players care. they would take the last CBA in a heart beat without any thought to those teams.

anyhow, i can see it as an argument that the NHL doesnt know what its doing, but not as an argument for the players to not take the offer. short of reverting to the old CBA, the salary floor offer is the best part of the owners offer.

dr
Actually, I think it's a big issue for the players. Revenue sharing was a huge part of their proposal to the NHL and why they want to see the owners have a financial partnership with each other first. Under the leagues salary range proposal it takes the cost savings of the players salaries and gives the big revenue clubs a big profit. I think they would rather see some of that guaranteed to keep the small market teams at or above the salary floor.

shnagle is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 10:36 AM
  #53
likea
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shnagle
Actually, I think it's a big issue for the players. Revenue sharing was a huge part of their proposal to the NHL and why they want to see the owners have a financial partnership with each other first. Under the leagues salary range proposal it takes the cost savings of the players salaries and gives the big revenue clubs a big profit. I think they would rather see some of that guaranteed to keep the small market teams at or above the salary floor.

the players want that money to be shared so they can force the small market teams to spend it on the players

don't kid yourself

the more money given to the small market teams, the higher the salary floor can be

likea is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 10:38 AM
  #54
shnagle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by likea
the Pittsburgh Penguins, 4 years ago had a payroll of 34 million and they made money

5 years ago they had a payroll of 32 million and they made money

Lemieux and the Penguins made a small amount of profit the first three to four years he owned the team

the problem came when they had to give raises to all their players...Jagr, Straka, Kasper, Lang, Kovy, Boughner...ect...ect..

they could not afford to raise payroll over 34 million and not lose a ton of money

they were forced to unload these players for less value than they are worth because the big market teams knew they could not hang onto them

the fans went from making the conference finals to watching a minor league team on the ice all because of money

if big market teams cannot give Lang 5 million a year, Jagr 11, Kovy 6, Boughner 3, Kasper 4 and the players price range fell to where it is reasonable...the Pens would have been able to at least keep a core together and build around them

but why keep Kovy's 6 million when you lose the rest of your all-stars and your probably going to lose anyways

look at the Pens attendence when they win or are in a race for the playoffs, its very good for the arena they have

the NHL will revenue share to get every team to 32 million....once they get to 32 million, with good hockey moves they should be able to compete

once they can compete year in and year out then they should be able to aquire a fan base

its like a domino effect....but they must be able to compete
Again, we agree that a teams success will allow them to be financially solvent to meet the floor. The problem is that a third of the league is small revenue and even if half of those teams are competitive at any given time that leaves the other half struggling to meet the floor. That is why I have a problem with the salary range as it is currently constructed by the league. It puts all small revenue teams in a must-win situation to survive. Wouldn't the league be better served overall if it would simply guaratee to share the revenue between big and small revenue teams?

shnagle is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 10:39 AM
  #55
OlliMackBjugStud
Registered User
 
OlliMackBjugStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by likea
look at the last 4 NHL seasons

take the top 15 in payroll and the bottom 15

who has the best chance to make the playoffs, is it even, if every team has the same chance to compete it should be even...right???
you are looking at it in a vacuum. first off, good teams cost money. so it stands to reason the higher paid teams are better teams. second off, not all teams are in playoff run mode. they are building and therefore dont need to carry a higher payroll.

dont be so myopic.

dr

OlliMackBjugStud is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 10:46 AM
  #56
shnagle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by likea
the players want that money to be shared so they can force the small market teams to spend it on the players

don't kid yourself

the more money given to the small market teams, the higher the salary floor can be
Question, if the salary range is a percentage of total revenue it means that teams can not spend more than the top of that range no matter how the revenue is divided correct?

shnagle is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 10:54 AM
  #57
likea
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
you are looking at it in a vacuum. first off, good teams cost money. so it stands to reason the higher paid teams are better teams. second off, not all teams are in playoff run mode. they are building and therefore dont need to carry a higher payroll.

dont be so myopic.

dr

exactly

good teams cost money

those small market teams will never, ever be able to pay the money it costs to be good

so therefore they are not competitive

split last years teams by teams that pay over 39 million and teams that pay less

again, the good teams are the ones that can afford to be good.....money wise

if salaries are brought down, teams that have smaller payrolls will be able to compete for the playoffs more fairly because good teams will not costs a lot more money

which would you rather have

77 million to spend on player payroll or 34???

who do you think will do better????

naa, money doesn't mean your competitive..right????

likea is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 11:01 AM
  #58
likea
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shnagle
Question, if the salary range is a percentage of total revenue it means that teams can not spend more than the top of that range no matter how the revenue is divided correct?

the NHL had a salary range of 32-42 million dollars but they also had a percentage, which was 55%, which I think is 38 million per team

teams can go below or above the 38 million in the salary range BUT if the overall revenue going towards players exceeds 55% then the NHLPA has to pay the NHL the difference

also if the overall player revenue is under the 55% mark, the NHL has to pay the NHLPA the revenue

likea is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 11:04 AM
  #59
shnagle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by likea
the NHL had a salary range of 32-42 million dollars but they also had a percentage, which was 55%, which I think is 38 million per team

teams can go below or above the 38 million in the salary range BUT if the overall revenue going towards players exceeds 55% then the NHLPA has to pay the NHL the difference

also if the overall player revenue is under the 55% mark, the NHL has to pay the NHLPA the revenue
So, given that how does revenue sharing add money to the salary floor if there is a fixed percentage?

shnagle is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 11:12 AM
  #60
likea
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shnagle
So, given that how does revenue sharing add money to the salary floor if there is a fixed percentage?

I am not sure of the question

but teams will be given enough money by the league to reach the salary floor which is 32 or 34 million

the other teams like the Red wings, avs, will spend 42 million or close to it to reach the 55% mark

likea is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 11:15 AM
  #61
shnagle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by likea
I am not sure of the question

but teams will be given enough money by the league to reach the salary floor which is 32 or 34 million

the other teams like the Red wings, avs, will spend 42 million or close to it to reach the 55% mark
It was in response to your suggestion that the more money given to small market teams the higher the salary floor would go. Since total salaries are a defined percentage I don't see how sharing revenue raises the overall salary percentage.

shnagle is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 11:22 AM
  #62
likea
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shnagle
It was in response to your suggestion that the more money given to small market teams the higher the salary floor would go. Since total salaries are a defined percentage I don't see how sharing revenue raises the overall salary percentage.

oh, because that is why the players want more revenue sharing to go to small market teams

so they can spend it on player payroll and therefore raise the %

the players do not want a % set....so if no % is set then the money given to the small market teams will continue to go into the players pockets instead of the owners pockets

likea is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 11:24 AM
  #63
shnagle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by likea
oh, because that is why the players want more revenue sharing to go to small market teams

so they can spend it on player payroll and therefore raise the %

the players do not want a % set....so if no % is set then the money given to the small market teams will continue to go into the players pockets instead of the owners pockets
Fair enough, I felt like we were discussing the revenue sharing/salary floor in this thread assuming a salary cap/floor framework based on percentage. Sorry if I misunderstood your point and I hope you see mine.

shnagle is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 11:28 AM
  #64
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 60,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
ESPN's sports business writer

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1981387

Even before the National Hockey League lockout began on Sept. 16, commissioner Gary Bettman and many team executives have maintained they will lose less money if they don't play at all in 2004-05 than they would playing under the old collective bargaining agreement.

But they'd still lose money.

Pile on the effects of the lockout -- a decline in season-ticket sales, the loss of advertising, not to mention fan apathy and potential attrition -- and the next question becomes: If the NHL doesn't play at all in 2004-05, and possibly into 2005-06, what will happen to those teams?

Ask sports industry bankers, economists and lawyers, and the answers can range greatly: From team bankruptcies to league-imposed contraction to perhaps nothing at all.
That is a great article ..

My thinking and feelings in a Nut Shell .. This CBA is designed to focus on the bottom or weaker teams finacially to keep them operational and once all these controls are in place changing the NHL forever .. there is no guarantee that these non-hocket market teams will survive ..

Not the best strategy in my opinion ..

Mess is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 11:29 AM
  #65
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
well, that doesnt make sense....

if they can afford to throw 20m into a non revenue generating black hole, why cant they afford to a more workable salary drag system and get their game back on the ice ?

i have been led to believe they are taking this hardline bully stance because they cant afford to do otherwise/

dr
Here are the owners options:

1- Take a similar CBA to the last one and lose $10M/year for 10 years.
2- Negociate a good CBA, lost $10M/year for 2 years and then make $5M/year for 10 years.

Only idiots would choose #1 imo...

Also, the longer this gets, the less the owners can stray away from the linkage system since the revenues will be down. One analyst said that revenues next year would be down to $1.5B. If there's no hockey next year, it will be even further down the year after. With league wide revenues of $1.5B, will the owners be able to afford payrolls over $33M on average ($1B going to the players)? And what about the year after?

And for the players, isn't it moronic that even under a "free market" (aka their system), that they would get nothing more than this year's salary floor if this keeps on?

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 11:32 AM
  #66
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by likea
I bet alot of Caps fans would argue the point you state above, that the Caps have been a good franchise for the last 20 years
Prior to last year, the Caps were 177 games over .500 for those 20 seasons. My guess is that ranks in the top 5 of all NHL teams during that period.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 03:00 PM
  #67
Chayos
Registered User
 
Chayos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Whitehorse, Yukon
Posts: 2,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Depending on how this goes, there could be some teams that go cap & bust.
I am willing to bet that a lot of teh stuff that fans have wanted for years are put into place instantly to give people something new to come back and watch.

IE

Shoot outs, more scoring thru smaller goailie equipment ect.

Chayos is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 03:53 PM
  #68
Chayos
Registered User
 
Chayos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Whitehorse, Yukon
Posts: 2,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
That is a great article ..

My thinking and feelings in a Nut Shell .. This CBA is designed to focus on the bottom or weaker teams finacially to keep them operational and once all these controls are in place changing the NHL forever .. there is no guarantee that these non-hocket market teams will survive ..

Not the best strategy in my opinion ..
How much interest woudl there be in hockey if you had a VERY competitive team in those markets?

Lets say Fla becomes a perenial stanley cup contender, would fans support the team?

Look at the small market teams like ATL, FLA, COlumbus and add say 10-12 million dollars of talent to that good young core and you ahve something they haven't had yet, a competive team.

Chayos is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 10:27 PM
  #69
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by likea
exactly

good teams cost money

those small market teams will never, ever be able to pay the money it costs to be good

so therefore they are not competitive

split last years teams by teams that pay over 39 million and teams that pay less

again, the good teams are the ones that can afford to be good.....money wise

if salaries are brought down, teams that have smaller payrolls will be able to compete for the playoffs more fairly because good teams will not costs a lot more money

which would you rather have

77 million to spend on player payroll or 34???

who do you think will do better????

naa, money doesn't mean your competitive..right????
Are you saying that small market teams don't ever make money???? Vancouver shoots that down. Cities like Chicago or Phoenix, both in the top 10 population in the US, prove the theory that big market does not guarentee big money.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html

vanlady is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 11:22 PM
  #70
cws
...in the drink
 
cws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
Are you saying that small market teams don't ever make money???? Vancouver shoots that down. Cities like Chicago or Phoenix, both in the top 10 population in the US, prove the theory that big market does not guarentee big money.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html
If your looking a more accurate population figure, it's best to go with ones that include the metro area. The links below are just one of the places you can find this info. There are others of course, and some more up to date than others. But the populations and estimates are pretty much the same.

I think it's pretty well known that big population doesn't necessarily translate into big market NHL team. In many cases, yes. But not always.

http://www.citypopulation.de/USA-Com...ml#Stadt_gross or
http://www.citypopulation.de/USA-Metro.html#Stadt_gross for US cities

http://www.citypopulation.de/Canada.html#Stadt_agglo for Canadian cities

cws is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 11:36 PM
  #71
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw7
If your looking a more accurate population figure, it's best to go with ones that include the metro area. The links below are just one of the places you can find this info. There are others of course, and some more up to date than others. But the populations and estimates are pretty much the same.

I think it's pretty well known that big population doesn't necessarily translate into big market NHL team. In many cases, yes. But not always.

http://www.citypopulation.de/USA-Com...ml#Stadt_gross or
http://www.citypopulation.de/USA-Metro.html#Stadt_gross for US cities

http://www.citypopulation.de/Canada.html#Stadt_agglo for Canadian cities
Thanks for the links, I have been looking for Metro area population numbers.

The question for me is, how Chicago, the third largest city in the US, can't market a hockey team? You can't tell me with 10 million people they can't fill a rink? That is poor marketing.

vanlady is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 11:47 PM
  #72
cws
...in the drink
 
cws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
Thanks for the links, I have been looking for Metro area population numbers.

The question for me is, how Chicago, the third largest city in the US, can't market a hockey team? You can't tell me with 10 million people they can't fill a rink? That is poor marketing.
True. Wirtz has his own unique way of running the team. The Wolves do better than the Hawks, and that's kinda sad.

Go to the Hawks board and ask, they'll have more details about it (if you can sift through all the negative and scathing comments that would be directed at Wirtz).

cws is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 12:42 AM
  #73
likea
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
Are you saying that small market teams don't ever make money???? Vancouver shoots that down. Cities like Chicago or Phoenix, both in the top 10 population in the US, prove the theory that big market does not guarentee big money.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html

no, I am saying small market teams have very little chance to compete with the bigger market teams

thats what this lockout is about, making things a lil more fair for everyone

likea is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 01:05 AM
  #74
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by likea
no, I am saying small market teams have very little chance to compete with the bigger market teams

thats what this lockout is about, making things a lil more fair for everyone
OK Vancouver is in the bottom half of the league for population. Our team is not only competative but also a money maker, what makes them so different than these other teams???

vanlady is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 01:18 AM
  #75
likea
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanlady
OK Vancouver is in the bottom half of the league for population. Our team is not only competative but also a money maker, what makes them so different than these other teams???

corporate support for one

I have seen you complain or boast (not sure which) how much the cost of living in that area is

could this have something to do with people being able to afford insane prices for NHL games

here in Pittsburgh, you can bye a 4 bedroom house for $125,000...the economy is in the crapper and all the young people are moving away

and the Canucks will get theirs soon...Naslund has to be signed soon or let go...the Sedins are still on their rookie contracts...right??? ( I might be wrong about that), you have 2 #1 d-man on your team.....they will want what #1 d-man make

what happens when your fan base gets sick of you losing in round one or two every year????

and it doesn't always depend on city size, it could just depend if your owner is willing to spend out of his pocket to be a team that competes with the other teams

it will catch up to you...thats what you don't seem to understand...if things stay as they are it will catch up to you

Ottawa also....

you just happen to have some very good young players mixed with some older players right now

if I asked you 12 years ago today who had the highest payroll in the NHL and who the most dominant teams was in 93 who would you say

it will catch up to you...you just don't want to see it

likea 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 11:36 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.