The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
How will Fehr explain a missed season (if that happens)?
The NFL has figured it out, which is why they've always had significant revenue sharing--- qualify that by saying--- if you want to be a BIG league in the US with 30+ teams, you have widely disparate market potentials. The only way these teams can compete with each other on a level footing is if revenue is redistributed and shared.
Then why does the NFL have an artificial and complex economic system with a salary cap? Isn't that against what you want the NHL to have? You said you wanted a simple econimc system with massive revenue sharing.
Didn't the NFL just use the CBA negotiation to lower the players share of revenue? With their massive revenue sharing, why were the players asked to fund this with their share reduction?
The NFLPA said they went from 53% of revenue to 46.5-48% of revenue.
Quote:
NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith has stated that players were actually receiving around 53 percent of all revenues instead of the much advertised 60 percent.
• Players get 48 percent of "all revenue."
• Players' share will never dip below 46.5 percent, under new formula being negotiated
Sound like the NFL has some concerns too:
Quote:
Players believe they can justify a 48 percent take because of the projected revenue growth, as well as built-in mechanisms that require teams to spend close to 100 percent of the salary cap, a source told ESPN.com's John Clayton. The mandatory minimum spending increase is an element that concerns lower-revenue clubs, sources say.
For example, if the 2011 salary cap were to be at $120 million, a team would have to have a cash payroll of close to $120 million. In the previous collective bargaining agreement, the team payroll floor was less than 90 percent of the salary cap and was only in cap figures, not cash.
The higher floor proposal could cause some problems for the lower revenue teams such as the Cincinnati Bengals and the Buffalo Bills. Along with the salary cap, teams have to pay an average of about $27 million a year in benefits.
The NFL has figured it out, which is why they've always had significant revenue sharing--- qualify that by saying--- if you want to be a BIG league in the US with 30+ teams, you have widely disparate market potentials. The only way these teams can compete with each other on a level footing is if revenue is redistributed and shared.
Don't you need big revenue T.V. contracts to make this feasible. Toronto and NY are not going to give all thier net cash to everybody else...
By the way, the NBC contract that the evil Gary B. got must be a step in the right direction ?
Don't you need big revenue T.V. contracts to make this feasible. Toronto and NY are not going to give all thier net cash to everybody else...
Why don't the Rangers and Leafs just tour the continent playing each other, like the Harlem Globetrotters and the Washington Generals (I'll leave it to you to figure out which team is which)?
That way, they'd get to keep all of their precious monies.
Why don't the Rangers and Leafs just tour the continent playing each other, like the Harlem Globetrotters and the Washington Generals (I'll leave it to you to figure out which team is which)?
That way, they'd get to keep all of their precious monies.
Fehr would tell the players that the revenue disparity is so massive and that owners don't want to foot the bill for fixing their own mistakes (expansion, CBAs, bad contracts), so they just want to take it out of the players' share; while restricting player mobility to the point where the majority of them are locked in for the duration of their short careers.
How can Fehr tell the players that expansion was a mistake when 30% of the members get paid by so-called new teams?
Why don't the Rangers and Leafs just tour the continent playing each other, like the Harlem Globetrotters and the Washington Generals (I'll leave it to you to figure out which team is which)?
That way, they'd get to keep all of their precious monies.
Well two teams is extreme but a league of 12 to16 and you're right on.
And he has zero evidence that this would happen. He uses the NBA as a model? You only need 3 stars to win a championship because they play 75% of the game. At the end of this quote. he even showed why the NHL owners would never give Crosby that high of a hit.
The Pittsburgh owner would never give Crosby $12 million cap hit. It would severly limit his options to build a championship team. Success is more about depth than having a few stars like the NBA. The NBA has a 15 man roster limit, but only 12 active players for each game. Why would the NBA pay players good money for only 5-8 minutes a night? That would be like the NHL paying 4th liners millions per season. 4th liners will never get $2+ million contracts. The middle class in the NHL may get $250k-500k less per season with 5 year limits.
Why didn't this happen when the cap was introduced? Shouldn't the cap have prevented the "middle class" from growing since the superstar would take up 20% of the cap (max contracts)? Except this didn't happen in the NHL because you need depth to win. The superstars are the ones that lost the most with the last CBA, the "middle class" did the best for themselves. 5 year limits would hurt the top 5% and the "middle class" salaries will continue to grow the fastest.
How many superstars want to show how selfish they are by taking up 20% of the cap space? They will take less, like they have been for the past 7 years, to leave room for the "middle class".
Crosby could have demanded a max contract after his ELC ended and Pittsburgh would have payed it, but he didn't because he knew that there needed to be money available to build the team around him. Crosby will make way more money in endorsements than any "middle class" player ever could and it is outside the player's share of HRR. This is why Crosby will sacrifice for the team with this salary.
Ok, please give us some examples and what exactly they have done wrong?
Atlanta (never shoulve imploded, deliberate)
Tampa (until Viniks arrival)
Sunrise (until reorganization)
Dallas (lets see what Galiardi does)
Columbus (beyond incompetent for a decade)
Phoenix (where do you even start?)
Nashville (only in the last 2yrs respectable)
Edmonton (Katz going full-on Extortion)
Long list actually. And no, Im not suggesting any of these teams be Contracted or Relocated. But to suggest Ownership & Management's hands in any given market are clean is to completely ignore reality. Like a reporter searching for abuses at nursing homes, all one has to do with practically any given franchise, large or small is kick over a few rocks. Not pretty.
There's a reason why it's a lockout, not a strike.
At this point, it can be considered a strike just as much as a lockout. There was an offer on the table to get the players back on the ice. They refused to accept it, hence a strike.
What if your company released a press release last year and stated:
Best-ever business year highlighted by record revenue
Record Revenue - true.
What you also have to acknowledge however:
Record Player Cost.
Record Cost of doing business.
Combined with an annually decreasing share of those aforementioned record revenues.
Smallest share of total revenue since before the lockout.
Acknowledge THAT, and you then begin to understand the point of this lockout.
Were you expecting the PA to release a presser stating "Best ever business year.. Record total salaries collected!".
All you've got to ask yourself is... what was the point of that release?
To shoot them in the foot come the CBA?
Or to sell and drum up interest in sponsership and ownership groups that may be interested in investing?
Maybe you can understand why they didn't release a "Cost of doing business is at record levels!"
Is Phoenix bombing because of player salaries, or because they have terrible attendance with a nuclear arena?
Phoenix is a bad example, because the league is in all likelihood about the move them anyways, regardless of the CBA. But in fact, can't you say both have hurt them? I'm not really clear on what the case is that Phoenix would have better attendance with a better arena, or what in the hell ownership is supposed to even do to get that arena. They can't finance it themselves. It seems like they've been doing their utmost to get the taxpayers to pay for it for them.
Atlanta (never shoulve imploded, deliberate)
Tampa (until Viniks arrival)
Sunrise (until reorganization)
Dallas (lets see what Galiardi does)
Columbus (beyond incompetent for a decade)
Phoenix (where do you even start?)
Nashville (only in the last 2yrs respectable)
Edmonton (Katz going full-on Extortion)
Long list actually. And no, Im not suggesting any of these teams be Contracted or Relocated. But to suggest Ownership & Management's hands in any given market are clean is to completely ignore reality. Like a reporter searching for abuses at nursing homes, all one has to do with practically any given franchise, large or small is kick over a few rocks. Not pretty.
This isn't a list of things that ownership did wrong, it's a list of teams. MOD
Last edited by Fugu: 12-09-2012 at 12:18 AM.
Reason: then ask him to expand
Out of the 13 forwards that played more than 35 games, he averaged 10th in icetime (11th out of 13 in the playoffs). There's also a reason why he's not playing in New York. Montreal overpaid for something they felt they needed (his physicality).
I think most would look at him as a lower tier 3rd liner - but still a 3rd liner.
__________________ "It’s not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, it’s as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Phoenix is a bad example, because the league is in all likelihood about the move them anyways, regardless of the CBA. But in fact, can't you say both have hurt them? I'm not really clear on what the case is that Phoenix would have better attendance with a better arena, or what in the hell ownership is supposed to even do to get that arena. They can't finance it themselves. It seems like they've been doing their utmost to get the taxpayers to pay for it for them.
Phoenix is not a bad example when you look at their history, including before they even got a team. It would have helped if they had better ownership even before this current mess. But it also would have helped if the market was ready to accept them - which they weren't.
Phoenix is a bad example, because the league is in all likelihood about the move them anyways, regardless of the CBA. But in fact, can't you say both have hurt them? I'm not really clear on what the case is that Phoenix would have better attendance with a better arena, or what in the hell ownership is supposed to even do to get that arena. They can't finance it themselves. It seems like they've been doing their utmost to get the taxpayers to pay for it for them.
The world of professional sports is not a typical/normal real world business. I don't know why you would try and apply supply/demand here.
It's entertainment/sports with a union.......negotiating for how many people are going to sleep in a 4 or 5 star hotel when they travel out of town and get a stipend for meals.... yada,yada, yada.
sorry.........it's not real world economics. I don't get a tax payer subsidized place of employment, do you?
Yes it is. Profits, losses, margins are the same. It's only the NHL we're reality does not apply. You got a tax subsidized arena and so is your team to be honest. Sharing of profits does nothing because teams are still losing money. The cap floor needs to go to prevent this.
As far as we know, the so-called money issues are pretty much settled (give or take few changes).
The argument is about contract issues which have only indirect effects on players, in the end players will get the 50% which has been agreed upon.
So tell me this; how would the PA get back the money they will miss (1.89B) if the season is cancelled? It would mean they would need a deal that gets them 190M MORE than current NHL proposal EVERY season for the next 10 years (or even more if the next CBA is shorter than 10 years) to justify sitting out for the season.
What are the chances of owners caving to that extent that would make up for the money lost for the players?
When will the players see the light? How many players are actually willing to lose the season given that 70% of the contracts are up in 3 years?
What are the players fighting for? Long-term contracts given only to star players?
What does your average 3rd-4th line forward or 3rd pairing d-man gain from missing the season?
If the whole season is missed, who's the one to stand up and tell PA it wasn't worth it?
I've read this sentiment on EVERY SINGLE lockout thread on two boards.
Maybe it's the tin-foil hat I'm wearing but I'm getting suspicious.
Here's the conspiracy theory:
Donald Fehr never intended to make any agreement with the League. His goal was to decertify the NHLPA. Reason? It's been threatened and semi-carried out in other leagues but has never been fully implemented. Perhaps because of too many unknowns, fear of failure, who knows. Perhaps Fehr (on behalf of all the other unionites in professional sport) wanted to use the NHLPA as a guinea pig to see where a decertification of a major-league sports union would end up.
After all, if you're going to do an experiment like this, may as well do it to the least-popular and least-relevant major league sport in the USA.
m.
And I think Bettman might be willing to offer the league as a guineau pig on this. No doubt the boys at Proskauer Rose want a test case on a league that doesn't matter to them
You only need 3 stars to win a championship because they play 75% of the game. At the end of this quote. he even showed why the NHL owners would never give Crosby that high of a hit.
