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.

Players Starting to Ask Uncomfortable Questions of NHLPA Leadership

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-09-2012, 02:56 PM
  #176
Valarukar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Or you can just have owners who don't want to risk 2 years of uninsured contract not offer the contracts

If the risk is so costly, you'd think most owners would naturally avoid the extra two years.

If that's how you want to look at it then maybe they want it 5 years so that teams with the money to take that "gamble" don't have an advantage over teams with less money available to them.

Valarukar is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 03:15 PM
  #177
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
 
Gump Hasek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 222 Tudor Terrace
Posts: 7,975
vCash: 1440
Quote:
Originally Posted by albatross View Post
I have also seen people state just what you did. That the Forbes numbers prove bad markets and bad fans. Maybe if I spent more time here on a regular basis I would understand this split, but as of now, I'm not getting it.
I said nothing about bad fans but rather have consistently pointed out the unpleasant data that backs the assertion held by many in the press, the assertion that certain markets in the NHL are experiencing financial difficulties, due that their underlying businesses do not support their expenses - and this is after receiving league revenue sharing welfare in most cases yet. This is borne out for example by their low average ticket prices relative to the mean in a gate-driven league, by the need to price tickets at $10 just to get bodies into the building, and in fact by the very need for the league to currently lock out both the able markets and the players to protect a few franchises that are clearly unable to pay their own freight due their location.

It boils down to that we can't watch NHL hockey right now because the league needs to come up with a way to sustain some quite poor markets.

Gump Hasek is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 03:17 PM
  #178
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,289
vCash: 500
Where can we look to find the facts and figures on past revenue sharing, so we can see which franchises are relying on it?

Boltsfan2029 is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 03:39 PM
  #179
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
The welfare of others is growing. Your market loses money on its own, as per Forbes and many others. This is borne out by the need for $9.99 tickets.
Thank goodness the Carolina Hurricanes care so much about their fans they get a radio station to subsidize tickets instead of gouging their fans.

Why would you rather pay $200 per ticket?

TaketheCannoli is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 03:43 PM
  #180
Gump Hasek
Spleen Merchant
 
Gump Hasek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 222 Tudor Terrace
Posts: 7,975
vCash: 1440
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
Thank goodness the Carolina Hurricanes care so much about their fans they get a radio station to subsidize tickets instead of gouging their fans.

Why would you rather pay $200 per ticket?
I'd rather the league consisted only of franchises able to largely cover their own expenses versus the very need to tax the others that can. If it meant the loss or relocation of 4 or 6 of the worst offenders, so be it. I'd rather be watching NHL hockey right now versus having the league currently on hiatus due a need to further prop-up the weak markets.

Gump Hasek is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 03:55 PM
  #181
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 35,021
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
I by the need to price tickets at $10 just to get bodies into the building,
You are talking about a full STH package.

You have the right to be wrong about the global issues, but you don't have the right to misrepresent specific facts by using phrases like "casual Joe" and "bodies in the building" to describe full STH.

At this point you know that you're being misleading, and you're doing it anyway.

tarheelhockey is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 03:57 PM
  #182
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
I'd rather the league consisted only of franchises able to largely cover their own expenses versus the very need to tax the others that can. If it meant the loss or relocation of 4 or 6 of the worst offenders, so be it. I'd rather be watching NHL hockey right now versus having the league currently on hiatus due a need to further prop-up the weak markets.
Aha- but if every team made their tickets affordable, then through linkage payrolls would be lower and you'd be watching hockey. Hell maybe you could even afford to go to NHL games.

TaketheCannoli is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 04:02 PM
  #183
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by colchar View Post
I believe you are absolutely correct but surely they must be able to re-insure those contracts for subsequent five year terms? On Hockey Central they have consistently said that this five year term issue is simply a means through which the league/owners are seeking to idiot proof things since they have proven that they cannot be trusted not to hand out ridiculous contracts.
And the guys on HC know everything right?

Yes you might be able to re-insure those contracts. However I wonder how Boston is going to re-insure Savards contract. Or Philly re-insure Pronger's.

But assuming the player is still playing... then you have to take into account any injuries over the last 5 years (Crosby's concussion, Toews concussion, Kopitar's ankle injury, etc), and how much those injuries just jacked up the teams insurance premium. My life insurance went up 50% due to an enlarged liver (several doc's see absolutely no issues with it - but that's not stopping the insurance company from sticking it to me). Now imagine if I had 3-5 years left on a multi-million dollar contract.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
So- you mean like all of the NHL Board of Governour's votes are unanimous?

There is no way any single owner disagrees with the League's approach, right?
You would think that right? And I would be right there with you doubting the league. Right up until Tanenbaum, Burkle and Vinik were at the table - and left disillusioned. However the difference between the league and the PA is that the owners know what they need (or think they need) to run the team as a business, while the players are simply saying "no, you can't take that away."

__________________
"I changed the whole game, man," Rinaldo said. "Who knows what the game would have been like if I didn't do what I did?" [after illegally running Letang from behind, slamming his head into the glass]
Riptide is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 04:08 PM
  #184
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,575
vCash: 500
Fair Warning;

I do not want to read anymore posts about $10 tickets that represent a miniscule amount of any given franchises inventory as being representative of the median average. Obviously some teams are "challenged", and if they decide to discount, run a P.O.S. promotion with a sponsor whereby the customer receives a bonus of a ticket with purchase of a six pack and a potato or whatever else they can come up with, 2-4-1's etc rather than have an empty seat then good for them. Its simple straightforward Marketing 101, less than usually 1000 seats, period end of story. Suggesting otherwise is an intimation that borders on outright fan bashing.

[Holden Caulfield] Additionally, this is off-topic for the thread. Take it back to on-topic.


Last edited by Holden Caulfield: 12-09-2012 at 05:16 PM. Reason: added an addendum
Killion is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 04:44 PM
  #185
veganhunter
Mexico City Coyotes!
 
veganhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,053
vCash: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
Or you can just have owners who don't want to risk 2 years of uninsured contract not offer the contracts

If the risk is so costly, you'd think most owners would naturally avoid the extra two years.
This is the stupidest argument ever. The NHL is a gate driven league and it needs parity to have solid attendance especially in the "less than stellar" markets. Other than cost certainty parity was the other big reason for the salary cap if you undermine the level playing field teams that already struggle on the ice and to get fans to the games are going to suffer even more. Or they will be forced to hand out those contracts to stay competitive and have to accept that risk. Which obviously they don't want to.

veganhunter is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 05:14 PM
  #186
IdealisticSniper
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 9,712
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
I'd rather the league consisted only of franchises able to largely cover their own expenses versus the very need to tax the others that can. If it meant the loss or relocation of 4 or 6 of the worst offenders, so be it. I'd rather be watching NHL hockey right now versus having the league currently on hiatus due a need to further prop-up the weak markets.
I dont think you get it. Its not 4-6 franchises. Its 10-15. And 10 franchises receive revenue sharing yearly.

The hockey you would be watching would be a league of six teams. And a league very very few people would actually care about. Oh and by the way, you think contracting 4+ teams is going to let you watch hockey? Try telling the NHLPA that 150 of them wont have the jobs they had before and see if they will sign off on that. Good luck.

IdealisticSniper is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 05:26 PM
  #187
veganhunter
Mexico City Coyotes!
 
veganhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,053
vCash: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
I'd rather the league consisted only of franchises able to largely cover their own expenses versus the very need to tax the others that can. If it meant the loss or relocation of 4 or 6 of the worst offenders, so be it. I'd rather be watching NHL hockey right now versus having the league currently on hiatus due a need to further prop-up the weak markets.
The problem with this though is the lower rev. teams bring the cap floor down because of how it is calculated so if they disappear the cap floor goes up and the middle teams become the bottom teams. If I'm wrong correct me but that's how I believe it work out any way.

Also I agree that some teams (not saying it's necessarily any of the teams of the guys you arguing with) would probably be better off in other locations but you're never going to win that argument on this site. I wouldn't waste my breath.

veganhunter is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 05:32 PM
  #188
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdealisticSniper View Post
I dont think you get it. Its not 4-6 franchises. Its 10-15. And 10 franchises receive revenue sharing yearly.

The hockey you would be watching would be a league of six teams. And a league very very few people would actually care about. Oh and by the way, you think contracting 4+ teams is going to let you watch hockey? Try telling the NHLPA that 150 of them wont have the jobs they had before and see if they will sign off on that. Good luck.
Contraction threats is the only way the NHLPA would break. As for the bolded, who cares? Why not watch the NFL if you want that. And reconcile that with the situation right now were only the northeast teams are shown on TV.


Quote:
Or Brewers, Jays, Expos, Orioles, KC etc.

Fehr took baseball back to the haves and have nots in the most extreme way. Say what you will about the current cap system, but I for one, am glad that we don't see teams like the Rangers, Wings and Leafs loading up on all the mercenaries like we used to. At least now guys at the middle and bottom tiers are valued because you need them in a cap world. The parity is much better now.

For years in Edmonton we were forced to trade guys because we could not afford the offers other clubs would make. The cap, and stable ownership, have changed that. Mostly the cap though IMHO.
Wow, back it up. Jays are the 4th largest market in NA. They don't spend because they don't want to. Expos had poor attendance. Orioles and KC suck. Mercenary teams pay the bills. And what about prongers wife? Edmonton is not the average young guys first choice, believe it or not.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 05:33 PM
  #189
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,583
vCash: 500
This can be solved by eliminating the floor.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 05:42 PM
  #190
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
The PA would never sign a deal that included the elimination of the cap floor.

Xref is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 05:56 PM
  #191
Millhaus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 6,237
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
This can be solved by eliminating the floor.
Or at least tying it to a percentage of the cap instead of simply being $16 mil less than the cap.

Coming out of the last lockout with a cap of $39 mil the floor of $23 mil was 59% of the cap. Currently with a cap of $70 mil the floor would be $54 mil or 77% of the cap. If the floor was say 60% of the cap or $42 mil instead that $12 mil difference would make a huge difference for a lot of team's bottom line. Would it negatively impact the league's parity? Probably but what it more important parity or having almost every team being healthy financially?

Millhaus is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 06:01 PM
  #192
JoemAvs
Registered User
 
JoemAvs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Country: Germany
Posts: 3,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by grog View Post
Why don't you tell them what they should get paid, go ahead, tell us all what they should make, it's not as though they earned what they did under some ownership controlled anything but free market over the past few yea...o wait.

Ill tell you what, if you don't like what they get paid, don't watch, because no matter how you slice it, the reason the cap went up is more people paid more money to watch those players that so many of you seem to have a hate on for. JUST STOP WATCHING, those players don't owe you a damn thing, or [mod] accept that everyone always wants as much as they can get and for better or worse this negotiation is just part of a process.
Yeah I will do that. They should earn as much and as little as needed.
Americans and their free market. There is no free market in the NHL. Those 30 franchises are tied together. The contracts are not worth much without a CBA. If they want to go ahead and sign with the KHL or SEL go ahead. Nobody will stop them.
What you and the players don't get that this is a partnership.
The players are nothing without the NHL and the NHL is nothing without its players. A healthy league is in the interest of both.
That is why I dislike the players position. They are willing to let this thing go off the cliff only because of greed. (same with the owners)
Do you think the PA is happy if all of a sudden 5 franchises fold because it is not longer financially sustainable?
Do you really believe they would like that?
If 100 of their own guys lose there jobs and have to work in Russia without the comfort and a fraction of their salary?
Is it a system problem? Yes. But the PA does not care about those mistakes. They are not interested in anything but money.And than they complain again when the CBA is up and they have to give. That is the problem here.
And this has to be solved in the CBA negotiations. Owners can't force owners to share more. Players can during negotiations.
I could not care less about how many millions those guys make. I care about them ruining their own source of income. Because that is kind of stupid....


Last edited by JoemAvs: 12-09-2012 at 06:10 PM.
JoemAvs is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 06:26 PM
  #193
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 35,021
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Millhaus View Post
Or at least tying it to a percentage of the cap instead of simply being $16 mil less than the cap.
... other than salary concession to the NHLPA, is there a reason not to peg both the cap AND floor to percentages instead of absolute numbers? Honest question.


Last edited by Fugu: 12-09-2012 at 06:59 PM. Reason: ...
tarheelhockey is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 06:28 PM
  #194
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Millhaus View Post
Or at least tying it to a percentage of the cap instead of simply being $16 mil less than the cap.

Coming out of the last lockout with a cap of $39 mil the floor of $23 mil was 59% of the cap. Currently with a cap of $70 mil the floor would be $54 mil or 77% of the cap. If the floor was say 60% of the cap or $42 mil instead that $12 mil difference would make a huge difference for a lot of team's bottom line. Would it negatively impact the league's parity? Probably but what it more important parity or having almost every team being healthy financially?
There should be more than 16M between the ceiling and the floor...you are right, it would fix some of the issues...

BLONG7 is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 06:45 PM
  #195
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Millhaus View Post
Or at least tying it to a percentage of the cap instead of simply being $16 mil less than the cap.

Coming out of the last lockout with a cap of $39 mil the floor of $23 mil was 59% of the cap. Currently with a cap of $70 mil the floor would be $54 mil or 77% of the cap. If the floor was say 60% of the cap or $42 mil instead that $12 mil difference would make a huge difference for a lot of team's bottom line. Would it negatively impact the league's parity? Probably but what it more important parity or having almost every team being healthy financially?
Someone get's it. Finally. Exactly, what's the point of parity (mediocrity) if teams are losing money.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 07:07 PM
  #196
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 30,295
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoemAvs View Post
Yeah I will do that. They should earn as much and as little as needed.
Americans and their free market. There is no free market in the NHL. Those 30 franchises are tied together.
The contracts are not worth much without a CBA. If they want to go ahead and sign with the KHL or SEL go ahead. Nobody will stop them.
What you and the players don't get that this is a partnership.
The players are nothing without the NHL and the NHL is nothing without its players. A healthy league is in the interest of both.
That is why I dislike the players position. They are willing to let this thing go off the cliff only because of greed. (same with the owners)
Do you think the PA is happy if all of a sudden 5 franchises fold because it is not longer financially sustainable?
Do you really believe they would like that?
If 100 of their own guys lose there jobs and have to work in Russia without the comfort and a fraction of their salary?
Is it a system problem? Yes. But the PA does not care about those mistakes. They are not interested in anything but money.And than they complain again when the CBA is up and they have to give. That is the problem here.
And this has to be solved in the CBA negotiations. Owners can't force owners to share more. Players can during negotiations.
I could not care less about how many millions those guys make. I care about them ruining their own source of income. Because that is kind of stupid....
The NHL owners are in partnership together, but also with the players, but it's up to the players to force the NHL partners to share more with each other?

The owners are all in it for themselves, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander. They have their eye on franchise values, and they can't see how sharing with other teams enhances that... Maybe it doesn't? The NFL shares quite a bit more, always has, so perhaps there is a return on that investment under specific conditions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by veganhunter View Post
This is the stupidest argument ever. The NHL is a gate driven league and it needs parity to have solid attendance especially in the "less than stellar" markets. Other than cost certainty parity was the other big reason for the salary cap if you undermine the level playing field teams that already struggle on the ice and to get fans to the games are going to suffer even more. Or they will be forced to hand out those contracts to stay competitive and have to accept that risk. Which obviously they don't want to.
What does this have to do with the 5/7 yrs that NHL teams want as limits, with the 2 additional years to the home team?

Fugu is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 07:11 PM
  #197
ottawah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,685
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
This can be solved by eliminating the floor.
Sorry, no Miami Marlins wanted in the NHL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xref View Post
The PA would never sign a deal that included the elimination of the cap floor.
Why wouldn't the players agree to eliminate the floor? It really is only there for parity. It does not actually lower salaries. Players are guaranteed a percentage of revenue, and if the players are collectively "to be paid" 10 dollars or 10 trillion dollars for a face value on their contracts, they will still get 50% of revenue (i.e. 2B dollars), whatever that may be. If 300M of the current salaries retired today and were not replaced, the payroll would not change, other players would collectively receive 300M more.

ottawah is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 07:14 PM
  #198
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottawah View Post
Sorry, no Miami Marlins wanted in the NHL.



Why wouldn't the players agree to eliminate the floor? It really is only there for parity. It does not actually lower salaries. Players are guaranteed a percentage of revenue, and if the players are collectively "to be paid" 10 dollars or 10 trillion dollars for a face value on their contracts, they will still get 50% of revenue (i.e. 2B dollars), whatever that may be. If 300M of the current salaries retired today and were not replaced, the payroll would not change, other players would collectively receive 300M more.

Do the owners want to make money or not. I can tell you parity is not that big of a concern over everyone making a profit.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 07:14 PM
  #199
Lard_Lad
Registered User
 
Lard_Lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Millhaus View Post
Coming out of the last lockout with a cap of $39 mil the floor of $23 mil was 59% of the cap. Currently with a cap of $70 mil the floor would be $54 mil or 77% of the cap. If the floor was say 60% of the cap or $42 mil instead that $12 mil difference would make a huge difference for a lot of team's bottom line. Would it negatively impact the league's parity? Probably but what it more important parity or having almost every team being healthy financially?
And how much of an impact would it really have on parity? That cap would still only be 67% higher than the floor. People keep throwing out the MLB argument about parity being destroyed, but baseball's top payrolls are three times higher than the lowest ones. There's no comparison. All we'd get is something like the NBA, where small markets have to be selective about when they try to contend - some years you rebuild on the cheap, others you spend the money. (Actually, a ceiling 67% above the floor wouldn't even be that extreme - the Lakers' payroll is more than double the NBA floor.)

Lard_Lad is offline  
Old
12-09-2012, 07:22 PM
  #200
Frenzy1
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Someone get's it. Finally. Exactly, what's the point of parity (mediocrity) if teams are losing money.
I think you would still have a fair amount of parity even with a lower cap floor. The cap itself would make high spending teams unable to use the Edmonton's (past) as farm teams.

You would also see average 2nd liners/2nd pairing dmen getting more reasonable UFA contracts as teams wouldn't have to over spend on players just to get to the floor.

Frenzy1 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 05:13 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.