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.
LeBrun: NHL made new offer to NHLPA on Thursday (12/27)
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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)?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Exactly my point....which is why the players deserve the money they get paid.
Deserve? That's a strong word, it’s 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.
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 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.
