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.

Lockout VI:ve la Revolution!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-03-2013, 03:44 PM
  #876
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 25,788
vCash: 10592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
An interesting tidbit from TSN on New Jersey's playoff run (came from the announcement about them refinancing their debt).

"The team's run to the Stanley Cup final -- where it lost to Los Angeles in six games -- generated roughly $32 million in revenues"
Yeah, I read that too and it raised my eyebrows. The NHL doesn't seem like they are being very honest about their books. Taking this to the courts is probably the best thing for everybody.

coldsteelonice84 is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 03:48 PM
  #877
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
Nor can I blame them for signing a contract that was readily legal until two weeks ago. How did San Jose gamble? No one on their roster is overpaid, Havlet notwithstanding. So they buy him out and can barely afford to remedy an already depleted forward line.

If the league felt this way, they could have cancelled FA and prevented any signing. They did not. So yes, I can blame the NHL for incompetency, especially when sixteen teams will be negatively effected. GMs may make questionable decisions but when the number is so lopsided, it becomes suspect the NHL may not be all that well managed.



Because losing McDonagh and Higgins wasn't punishment enough? What's one more kick the crotch for good measure?

Allow me to translation. Smart GMs equate to "I couldn't afford to spend any more." What a coincidence their inability to spend benefits them.
The CBA was still active during FA...I don't think it's as simple as you make it seem that the league could just cancel it. Even if they can do that, you really think they can impose that without the PA's consent? And further, do you really think the players would choose to wait until a new CBA was signed? I think the likely answer is no considering that no player was obligated to sign any contract during FA yet they all negotiated and decided to take the security of a contract and risk the unknown with a new CBA rather than wait without a contract.

Ari91 is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 03:55 PM
  #878
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
( •_•)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,385
vCash: 13357
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
The CBA was still active during FA...I don't think it's as simple as you make it seem that the league could just cancel it. Even if they can do that, you really think they can impose that without the PA's consent? And further, do you really think the players would choose to wait until a new CBA was signed? I think the likely answer is no considering that no player was obligated to sign any contract during FA yet they all negotiated and decided to take the security of a contract and risk the unknown with a new CBA rather than wait without a contract.
Cancel was a poor choice of words but yes, the owners could have refused to accept any contracts until a new CBA was in place. Sure, the PA would scream foul but are they not doing so now with a possible $60M cap? The whole point I am illustrating is owners like Leipold were aware of a steep decline for the cap, yet let contracts go through without hesitation and are now whining about it.

Either way, I see this all as a ploy. The owners will accept a $65M cap, or thereabouts, if the PA backs off on something else, which is what NHL actually wants.

Bourne Endeavor is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 03:59 PM
  #879
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,835
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
And pepper criticised Burns' contract extension of $5.75M. 6/$42 works out to $7M per year, thus greater than Burns'
Yep... sorry initially misread your post. I've since edited it.

htpwn is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 04:02 PM
  #880
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,685
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
Yet most of us informed posters predicted a roll back of some extent. Those were the original claims at least. Even if we kept the previous cap, such a drastic drop cripples a good number of teams for no actual reason. Your scenario of "should have" necessitates they ignore free agency until the CBA was signed. How well do you imagine that going over with the PA?

Regardless, you now have sixteen teams who will have to forfeit value because of the NHL's incompetency. What a wonderful way to welcome back the fans.
Many media reports circulated before the summer UFA period that the NHL had informed the teams they would not be requesting a roll back in the new CBA.

mouser is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 04:10 PM
  #881
rojac
HFBoards Sponsor
 
rojac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Waterloo, ON
Posts: 6,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
Many media reports circulated before the summer UFA period that the NHL had informed the teams they would not be requesting a roll back in the new CBA.
I always assumed that meant a direct salary rollback like the one in 2005 that reduced all existing contracts by 24%. I didn't think it meant that they wouldn't be looking for a lower cap.

rojac is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 04:12 PM
  #882
atomic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
Given unlimited resources and no rules stopping them, there isn't a single GM in the NHL that would show fiscal restraint or responsibility when it comes to signing players.. not one. GMs are like kids trading hockey cards.

The reason the owners want rules and restrictions in place is to protect their assets ( the Team ) from the idiots they hire as GMs. The only way to control the GMs is to have the owner oversee every transaction the team makes ( and what owner wants to do that ) OR put rules in place restricting what the GMs can do.

I'm not blaming the GMs specifically, because there job is to build the best team they can. And if that means finding loop-holes, they will. The blame lies with everyone involved with the NHL as to why we are where we are.
I am sure every GM in the league needs owner approval when giving out 10 year contracts.

atomic is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 04:13 PM
  #883
99 steps
to the top
 
99 steps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: RV, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 2,921
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
Yeah, I read that too and it raised my eyebrows. The NHL doesn't seem like they are being very honest about their books. Taking this to the courts is probably the best thing for everybody.
I respectfully disagree. And I'm a lawyer.

99 steps is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 04:13 PM
  #884
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
Yeah, I read that too and it raised my eyebrows. The NHL doesn't seem like they are being very honest about their books. Taking this to the courts is probably the best thing for everybody.
I don't think you can deduct that. NJ is a fairly established team. If you look at the Forbes numbers, they seem to do fairly well (revenue wise) even without deep runs. I didn't think it would be 32m for them, and find it somewhat surprising, but it's not really far out. I figured it would be in the 25m range.

Additionally, if the PA was truly worried about team's books, they'd be auditing a few of them yearly. As they're not, you can conclude one of two things. Either they don't have the money to do so (which doesn't seem likely), and/or that whatever gain they feel they might get isn't worth what they'd spend to find it. Or that they feel that teams are reporting revenue as required/defined by the CBA.

__________________
"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."
Riptide is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 04:15 PM
  #885
NJDevs26
Moderator
Status quo
 
NJDevs26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
An interesting tidbit from TSN on New Jersey's playoff run (came from the announcement about them refinancing their debt).

"The team's run to the Stanley Cup final -- where it lost to Los Angeles in six games -- generated roughly $32 million in revenues"
Considering the 'cheapest' ticket was $300 for the Finals I might actually buy that Well actually some sth's paid a lot less ($75 for me, but there weren't any sections priced below that) but the single-game and more expensive sth seats definitely jacked up the average price throughout.

Whatever the average price is times over 175,000 (the combined attendance for ten playoff sellouts) is a LOT...and that's just ticket revenue, never mind concessions/programs/souvenirs.

NJDevs26 is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 04:15 PM
  #886
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
( •_•)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,385
vCash: 13357
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
I fail to see how Burke's offer to Richards' can be compared in such a simple way to that offered to Brent Burns by Doug Wilson. Two different players, two different contracts, two different teams with different financial ability and different amounts of available cap space.

Burke, whether you like him or not and notwithstanding his missteps elsewhere, has seemingly set the Leafs up very well for the lockout. Despite having more than the wherewithal and intense fan pressure to offer cap circumventing contracts, he held off, even if it meant losing that number one centre to New York:



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...article615788/

Perhaps more importantly and partly owing to the fact the team is rebuilding, Burke did not presume there would be a rollback. The Leafs have only 13 players signed for next season and a significant chunk of cap space to spend this coming off-season.
The parallel I was drawing is Toronto would have had similar cap difficulties had Richards agreed. Therefore, it would be unfair to call Wilson an idiot for signing Burns to what was then a perfectly reasonable contract.

I am not criticise Burke, rather I am stating it is disingenuous to lay blame squarely toward any specific GM, whose purpose to sign the best team possible under the paradigm established at the time, but not fault the owners for allowing those contracts in the first place.

Burke has done a solid job. A year ago, you could say the same for a number of teams that now may find themselves suddenly in cap difficulty because the owners accepted bloated contracts and only now want to reduce the cap by a substantial amount.

Bourne Endeavor is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 04:31 PM
  #887
onlyalad
Registered User
 
onlyalad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 4,329
vCash: 500
This whole cap issue could have been avoided if the NHL didnt raise the cap for this year to 70+ mil. Why would they do that knowing that the revenue sharing was going down? All these headaches and escrow problems would not exist if the cap was no raised.

onlyalad is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 04:38 PM
  #888
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 12,835
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
The parallel I was drawing is Toronto would have had similar cap difficulties had Richards agreed. Therefore, it would be unfair to call Wilson an idiot for signing Burns to what was then a perfectly reasonable contract.

I am not criticise Burke, rather I am stating it is disingenuous to lay blame squarely toward any specific GM, whose purpose to sign the best team possible under the paradigm established at the time, but not fault the owners for allowing those contracts in the first place.

Burke has done a solid job. A year ago, you could say the same for a number of teams that now may find themselves suddenly in cap difficulty because the owners accepted bloated contracts and only now want to reduce the cap by a substantial amount.
Not to beleaguer the point, but I have disagree about any difficulties the Leafs would have had if they signed Richards. The team would simply amnesty Komisarek (+$4.5 million), allow Lombardi's contract to expire (+$3.5), and would never have signed Connolly in the first place (+4.75).

Again though, it is easier for a team like Toronto to do this than a contender. Burke was not only preparing for the lockout, he was also putting stop gaps in place until younger players were ready. A team competing for the Cup is going to use that extra cap space in order to get the one or two extra players that they hope will put them over the top.

For a team like San Jose, and specifically the signing of Brent Burns, I don't think you can fault Doug Wilson for making such a signing. They aren't in a terrible position altogether. Handzus comes off the books at the end of this year (+$2.5) and then they would likely either have to amnesty Havlat (+$5.0) or let two of Murray (+2.5), Clowe (+$3.6), Galiardi, or Demers go. It would hurt them but every other team also has to meet the $60 million threshold, so it is shouldn't be viewed as a disadvantage.

htpwn is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 04:41 PM
  #889
CanadianPirate
Registered User
 
CanadianPirate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,121
vCash: 500
So what's happening right now? Are they meeting?

CanadianPirate is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 04:44 PM
  #890
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
( •_•)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,385
vCash: 13357
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlyalad View Post
This whole cap issue could have been avoided if the NHL didnt raise the cap for this year to 70+ mil. Why would they do that knowing that the revenue sharing was going down? All these headaches and escrow problems would not exist if the cap was no raised.
As pointed out earlier. The PA is who raised the cap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
Not to beleaguer the point, but I have disagree about any difficulties the Leafs would have had if they signed Richards. The team would simply amnesty Komisarek (+$4.5 million), allow Lombardi's contract to expire (+$3.5), and would never have signed Connolly in the first place (+4.75).

Again though, it is easier for a team like Toronto to do this than a contender. Burke was not only preparing for the lockout, he was also putting stop gaps in place until younger players were ready. A team competing for the Cup is going to use that extra cap space in order to get the one or two extra players that they hope will put them over the top.

For a team like San Jose, and specifically the signing of Brent Burns, I don't think you can fault Doug Wilson for making such a signing. They aren't in a terrible position altogether. Handzus comes off the books at the end of this year (+$2.5) and then they would likely either have to amnesty Havlat (+$5.0) or let two of Murray (+2.5), Clowe (+$3.6), Galiardi, or Demers go. It would hurt them but every other team also has to meet the $60 million threshold, so it is shouldn't be viewed as a disadvantage.
Aye, you are correct. I merely do not agree teams should have to lose so much value or watch players walk for nothing because of the league's inability to prevent these contracts from going through. Reduce the cap gradually would be a far more reasonable compromise, short of just accepting a $65-67M scenario and getting on with it. Put it this way, if this is the only hurdle left besides pension. The NHL is pushing it.

Bourne Endeavor is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 04:54 PM
  #891
CanadianPirate
Registered User
 
CanadianPirate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianPirate View Post
So what's happening right now? Are they meeting?
Tom Gulitti ‏@TGfireandice
RT @reporterchris: A group of players and union staff have just returned to the NHL office. More pension talk, apparently.

Chris Johnston ‏@reporterchris
A group of players and union staff have just returned to the NHL office. More pension talk, apparently.

There's my answer. Hopefully get a full meeting tonight.

CanadianPirate is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 05:00 PM
  #892
Gentle Ben Kenobi
That's no moon......
 
Gentle Ben Kenobi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tatooine
Posts: 20,534
vCash: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post

Burke, whether you like him or not and notwithstanding his missteps elsewhere, has seemingly set the Leafs up very well for the lockout. Despite having more than the wherewithal and intense fan pressure to offer cap circumventing contracts, he held off, even if it meant losing that number one centre to New York:



"We lost out on the Brad Richards sweepstakes for two reasons," said Burke, who is believed to have offered the player a six-year, $42-million deal. "One, we didn't offer as much money as other teams and more importantly we didn't structure the contract like other teams did.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...article615788/
Burke is wrong. He lost Richards to NY because Richards was signing there regardless. Even if Burke offered the contracts the others offered, Richards still would have signed where his buddy Torts was coaching.

Gentle Ben Kenobi is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 05:28 PM
  #893
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dingo View Post
Burke is wrong. He lost Richards to NY because Richards was signing there regardless. Even if Burke offered the contracts the others offered, Richards still would have signed where his buddy Torts was coaching.
True, if Burkie believes that he is crazy...Richards was going to the Rangers all along...a team he felt could contend, not a team that hasn't been in the playoffs...so he got more money, and the playoffs, good call on his part, although the Rangers gave him an insane contract...

BLONG7 is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 05:29 PM
  #894
sunnyvale420
Registered User
 
sunnyvale420's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 590
vCash: 500
Random thought. What would league revenues look like if for example the leafs went deep in the playoffs. Do the leafs have a greasy enough accountant to hide money or would all that extra income have disasterous effects on the league. Imagine TML NYR and MTL all go deep in the playoffs one year then miss the playoffs completely the next. With linkage to HRR you could theoretically go from an 80m cap to a 50m cap the next year.

Or are playoff revenues not included in HRR and its just been too long without hockey for me?

sunnyvale420 is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 05:29 PM
  #895
Conflicted Habs fan
Registered User
 
Conflicted Habs fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Montreal
Country: Martinique
Posts: 544
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianPirate View Post
So what's happening right now? Are they meeting?
The NHL is going down, and they only have Bettman to blame

Conflicted Habs fan is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 05:30 PM
  #896
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnyvale420 View Post
Random thought. What would league revenues look like if for example the leafs went deep in the playoffs. Do the leafs have a greasy enough accountant to hide money or would all that extra income have disasterous effects on the league. Imagine TML NYR and MTL all go deep in the playoffs one year then miss the playoffs completely the next. With linkage to HRR you could theoretically go from an 80m cap to a 50m cap the next year.

Or are playoff revenues not included in HRR and its just been too long without hockey for me?
They are included. And keep in mind the fines. First offense is 1m fine + the amount they hid. Second offense is 5m fine + double the amount hid.

Now is it worth the risk of under reporting money?

Edit, especially as we're not talking about taxes or anything like that. There's very little reason financially not to fully report revenues to the PA.

Riptide is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 05:41 PM
  #897
sunnyvale420
Registered User
 
sunnyvale420's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
They are included. And keep in mind the fines. First offense is 1m fine + the amount they hid. Second offense is 5m fine + double the amount hid.

Now is it worth the risk of under reporting money?
Thank you, Im in the camp that doesnt believe anything thats ever reported. That includes any revenue number from any team. Maybe the leafs brass made a choice to (semi kevin lowe) the team for the better of the league. Aka icing a lesser than competitive product. This is all pure BS conspiracy fun but really, could the leafs playoff revenues raise the cap floor enough on their own to screw the smaller markets over that much more

sunnyvale420 is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 05:43 PM
  #898
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,882
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
Taking this to the courts is probably the best thing for everybody.
Wow, I cant believe someone actually thinks this.

Cawz is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 05:45 PM
  #899
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conflicted Habs fan View Post
The NHL is going down, and they only have Bettman to blame
The same can be said of the PA and Fehr...this is a 50-50 blame game...

BLONG7 is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 05:49 PM
  #900
BlueChip01
HFBoards Sponsor
 
BlueChip01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,962
vCash: 500
Sounds like maybe the NHL did a bait/switch after Fehr pulled disclaimer off according to Brooks. Both sides are just being stupid. Just dumb and will not get anywhere doing that.

BlueChip01 is online now  
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 02:09 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.