HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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.

LeBrun: NHL made new offer to NHLPA on Thursday (12/27)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-31-2012, 10:38 AM
  #351
Pilky01
@JamesD_TO
 
Pilky01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xref View Post
That's fine. But the owners deserve to make as much as they can as well. Otherwise, why bother having an NHL? Might as well shut it down and build hotels in NYC instead. Then where do the players turn for lucrative hockey jobs?
When did it become a right for venture capitalists to make a profit?

When was it decided that owning a professional sports team should be a "zero risk" proposition?

The players deserve to fight for a better deal just as much as the owners do. If any particular owner doesnt think they can make money running an NHL team, then maybe pro sports isn't for them.

Pilky01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 10:44 AM
  #352
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,508
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
When did it become a right for venture capitalists to make a profit?

When was it decided that owning a professional sports team should be a "zero risk" proposition?

The players deserve to fight for a better deal just as much as the owners do. If any particular owner doesnt think they can make money running an NHL team, then maybe pro sports isn't for them.
It shouldn't be zero risk and it isn't, and it won't be. But no League should be economically structured in such a way that almost half the teams lose money and another 1/3 barely break even or make a minimal profit. It's not a "venture" of any sort if the odds are that stacked against the majority of teams making any kind of profit at all and almost 1/2 certain to lose money.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 10:46 AM
  #353
Pilky01
@JamesD_TO
 
Pilky01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
It shouldn't be zero risk and it isn't, and it won't be. But no League should be economically structured in such a way that almost half the teams lose money and another 1/3 barely break even or make a minimal profit. It's not a "venture" of any sort if the odds are that stacked against the majority of teams making any kind of profit at all and almost 1/2 certain to lose money.
It wasn't the players who demanded an economic structure. Cost certainty was the league's idea, not the player's.

Now it has backfired and the league wants a free mulligan.

Pilky01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 10:48 AM
  #354
Fantom
Registered User
 
Fantom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
It wasn't the players who demanded an economic structure. Cost certainty was the league's idea, not the player's.

Now it has backfired and the league wants a free mulligan.
That is what i think as well.

Fantom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 10:49 AM
  #355
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
It's not a "venture" of any sort if the odds are that stacked against the majority of teams making any kind of profit at all and almost 1/2 certain to lose money.
Most tech startups fail. Most VC-backed tech startups fail, spectacularly.

Most restaurants fail, too.

In fact, "most" of every category fails.

Teams should fail, too,

  Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 10:50 AM
  #356
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,508
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
It wasn't the players who demanded an economic structure. Cost certainty was the league's idea, not the player's.

Now it has backfired and the league wants a free mulligan.
No, and it isn't the players now who wish to fix it either. You seem to be saying that the owners don't have a right to fix it.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 10:52 AM
  #357
Pilky01
@JamesD_TO
 
Pilky01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
No, and it isn't the players now who wish to fix it either. You seem to be saying that the owners don't have a right to fix it.
They absolutely have a right to try and "fix" it.

And the players have a right to fight back.

For some reason though, most fans seem to think only ownership has a right to protect their interests.

Pilky01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 10:53 AM
  #358
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,508
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Most tech startups fail. Most VC-backed tech startups fail, spectacularly.

Most restaurants fail, too.

In fact, "most" of every category fails.

Teams should fail, too,
The NHL isn't a "start up".

And if you're specifically referring to the adoption of the Salary Cap system, then fine. It started off with some errors (yes, I also think, stupid errors), but now the League is trying to right those errors.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 10:53 AM
  #359
Scheme
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
When did it become a right for venture capitalists to make a profit?

When was it decided that owning a professional sports team should be a "zero risk" proposition?

The players deserve to fight for a better deal just as much as the owners do. If any particular owner doesnt think they can make money running an NHL team, then maybe pro sports isn't for them.
When was it decided that being a professional sports player should mean that they should be making much, much more money than the teams itself?

When was it decided that being a professional sports player should mean that the name on the back was more important than the name on the front?

When was it decided that being a professional sports player should mean that you get to be able to dictate what someone else does with their money but they don't get to do so with yours (revenue sharing)?

Scheme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 10:54 AM
  #360
Fantom
Registered User
 
Fantom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BradD View Post
I was a big hater of Bettman, and I still dislike him as a commissioner, but it's alot of Fehr here too.

Both Fehr and Daly are bringing this down. One does an idiot thing when a deal was on the table. All they had to agree on was contract length and CBA term. They didn't agree on any of it, not attempting to meet in the middle whatsoever. They could've said, let's give the 6/7 years instead of 8. They made no honest attempt.

Fehr is an idiot for doing this. Daly shouldn't have notified him the deal was rejected over a voice mail. Fehr is obnoxious for playing with the heart strings and going out before a deal was done. Fehr is annoying for stomping out there 10 minutes later to announce it, clearly in the heat of the moment. Bettman was stupid to take everything off the table once this happened.

Clearly you can see some pattern here.

Idiot Mistake
Idiot Mistake
I hate you!
No, I hate you!
Fine, i'll go tell the media
Everything is off the table

-weeks without talking-

So how's the wife and kids?
Both Fehr and Bettman are doing there jobs. If fans likes them then they are not doing there jobs. Fehr was brought in to help the players not just cave in. He is doing what they want him to do.
On the flip side betman is also doing what the owners want him to do. Neither one of these guys are idiots

Fantom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 10:55 AM
  #361
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheme View Post
When was it decided that being a professional sports player should mean that they should be making much, much more money than the teams itself?
When owners of those businesses decided it made sense to pay them that much.

Quote:
When was it decided that being a professional sports player should mean that the name on the back was more important than the name on the front?
It has never been any different.

Quote:
When was it decided that being a professional sports player should mean that you get to be able to dictate what someone else does with their money but they don't get to do so with yours (revenue sharing)?
I've never had any professional sports player in any sport or any league "dictate" what I could do with my money.

  Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 10:58 AM
  #362
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,508
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
They absolutely have a right to try and "fix" it.

And the players have a right to fight back.

For some reason though, most fans seem to think only ownership has a right to protect their interests.
I think that the owners made a good gesture with the Make Whole; that's what got me on their side in this (because previously I sided with the players, sympathized with the owners but thought they had been stupid and had to pay somewhat for their mistakes). Now I think it's the players who also need to recognize the economic realities of the League that employees them (and that's the realities of the whole League, not just the economic top 3 or 4 teams). Part of the players' interests should also be the health of the League.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 10:58 AM
  #363
Scheme
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
When owners of those businesses decided it made sense to pay them that much.
Right, so they are fixing their system now. When was it decided that they couldn't do that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
It has never been any different.
No, but the PA was always treated this about them, when they are not hurting and the teams and the league are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
I've never had any professional sports player in any sport or any league "dictate" what I could do with my money.
Exactly. So why do the players get to dictate what the league does with theirs?

Scheme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:01 AM
  #364
Fantom
Registered User
 
Fantom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I think that the owners made a good gesture with the Make Whole; that's what got me on their side in this (because previously I sided with the players, sympathized with the owners but thought they had been stupid and had to pay somewhat for their mistakes). Now I think it's the players who also need to recognize the economic realities of the League that employees them (and that's the realities of the whole League, not just the economic top 3 or 4 teams). Part of the players' interests should also be the health of the League.
the make whole thing should not even be something the owners are giving the players. The players and owners signed contracts and the players deserve what they signed for. Anything less is just not right.

Fantom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:02 AM
  #365
Capsized
Parity is a Disease
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,153
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Well, they are "businessmen", and most of them didn't make money in their other ventures just to then enter into the NHL to lose portions of that money, over and above the revenue being made, to excessive payments given to the players.
Cry me a river. These franchises are toys to the clowns. This is just a classic case of those with a lot trying to take from those with less and it will never end.

Capsized is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:03 AM
  #366
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Most tech startups fail. Most VC-backed tech startups fail, spectacularly.

Most restaurants fail, too.

In fact, "most" of every category fails.

Teams should fail, too,
Restaurants are in direct competition with each other financially. There's no Restaurant League. They're pretty much trying to put each other out of business. Sports leagues probably try to do the same thing, but the teams within the leagues aren't. Or they shouldn't be.

Get rid of the league, and then the Flyers can try all they want to break the Predators. With no league, then it's every franchise for itself. Can't keep up, too bad.

KingsFan7824 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:05 AM
  #367
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
It wasn't the players who demanded an economic structure. Cost certainty was the league's idea, not the player's.

Now it has backfired and the league wants a free mulligan.
How did cost certainty back fire for the league when they have record revenues and a brand new TV contract? The owners are not looking for a mulligan they are simply trying to restructure the cap so that teams who are struggling can remain a float while the league continues to grow. I would assume the thinking is continued growth=higher revenue and a bigger national TV contract. And without a structured cap continued growth is impossible without contracting teams which is counterproductive.

People need to realize that the only reason Major League Baseball survives without a cap is because the league’s top teams (Red Sox, Yankees, and the Dodgers) are all worth over a billion dollars, those 3 teams alone bring in over a billion dollars of revenue a year combined, and they have massive local TV deals. With revenue sharing the have’s in the MLB are able to float the have not’s.

As impressive as the Canadians, Maple Leafs and Rangers combined 200 million in operating income was last year it’s just simply not enough money to float the other 15-20 teams in the NHL who are breaking even or losing money. And those teams would lose even more money if there was no cap and they had zero chance of competing. Unless of course the NHL contracts 10 teams but that would kill any future national TV deals which in turn would kill any chance the NHL has of every being a major player in North American professional sports. The hard cap will save the NHL; the old system would kill it.


Last edited by du5566*: 12-31-2012 at 11:15 AM.
du5566* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:07 AM
  #368
NJDevs26
Moderator
Status quo
 
NJDevs26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 22,536
vCash: 500
No, owners shouldn't profit by rote, but you also need 30 viable franchises to maintain the overall health of the game. If it were up to the players, they'd be getting 70% of HRR and franchises would be dying on the vine. Then they can wonder if it was worth it when teams contract and jobs disappear.

NJDevs26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:08 AM
  #369
The Legend
Stamkos in 2016
 
The Legend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,820
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyStanley View Post
Very few NHL players get enough endorsement deals (during their playing years) to make a big dent in income. That's about the only non-playing "work" they can do, while playing.

(This is not the NBA nor NFL where guys can get millions per year.)
Exactly my point....which is why the players deserve the money they get paid.

The Legend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:09 AM
  #370
stuffradio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,170
vCash: 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
They absolutely have a right to try and "fix" it.

And the players have a right to fight back.

For some reason though, most fans seem to think only ownership has a right to protect their interests.
Most fans know how good of a life the players have with their salaries. It's not my fault if anyone on any side doesn't know how to save money instead of getting into an unhealthy spending spree.

stuffradio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:09 AM
  #371
The Legend
Stamkos in 2016
 
The Legend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,820
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
The NHL isn't a "start up".

And if you're specifically referring to the adoption of the Salary Cap system, then fine. It started off with some errors (yes, I also think, stupid errors), but now the League is trying to right those errors.
If the league was wrong before, who's to say they aren't wrong now? I wonder how many teams are losing money because of the ridiculous salary floor that was instituted?

The Legend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:13 AM
  #372
Blackie Dammit
proud flatlander
 
Blackie Dammit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Interlake
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,540
vCash: 50
So what are the chances that the PA moves the goal posts again with their counter??? I say 90%

Blackie Dammit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:13 AM
  #373
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Legend View Post
Exactly my point....which is why the players deserve the money they get paid.
Deserve? That's a strong word, itís hard for me to get on board with the theory that NHL players "deserve" to get every last dollar they can from the owners regardless of what damage it does to the league.

Teachers, fire fighters, and police officers "deserve" more money..... NHL players will get paid millions to play a game regardless, anything more is pure greed.

du5566* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:15 AM
  #374
The Legend
Stamkos in 2016
 
The Legend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,820
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheme View Post
Right, so they are fixing their system now. When was it decided that they couldn't do that?
When something called "collective bargaining" was instituted...



Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheme
No, but the PA was always treated this about them, when they are not hurting and the teams and the league are.
So the PA should give into every demand the league has?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheme
Exactly. So why do the players get to dictate what the league does with theirs?
Because if the league and the teams are "hurting" as much as you say they are, then meaningful revenue sharing should help alleviate that issue....(and avoid another lockout in 2020).

The Legend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:19 AM
  #375
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,508
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantom View Post
the make whole thing should not even be something the owners are giving the players. The players and owners signed contracts and the players deserve what they signed for. Anything less is just not right.
I think, Yes, it should be. It was a gesture of good faith, something to hopefully satisfy the players for the cuts that were going to have to be made into the contracts they had worked out under the last CBA. Yes, surely it should be a know fact that each new CBA can change the economic dynamics of previously negotiated contracts; but still, the Make Whole is a way for the owners to show that they're willing to take part of the responsibility of for the changes that have to be made. And Yes, it was the players who benefitted (or at least didn't lose) from the last CBA, but still there's the idea of something being taken away.

So again, I totally sided with the owners when they made the Make Whole offer. I do think the second offer increased the Make Whole too much, but I thought the first offer was a bit too little. Something in between the two is about right.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 04:23 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.