HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Detroit Red Wings
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Datsyuk, Franzen and Zetterberg's contract relative values into the future:

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-14-2009, 04:36 PM
  #26
DarkReign
Registered User
 
DarkReign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
Thanks for proving my point -- the NHL has similar ticket revenues to the NBA, and 1/3 - 1/2 of the TV audience -- yet the NHL's current TV contract is almost 1/5 of the NBA's! Obviously that gap will be closed in the coming years.
I dont think its that obvious. Thats a big leap in faith for a sport that has been around for quite some time.

If I didnt know any better, I'd think you were a soccer advocate who has been spouting the 40-year-old tagline "Just wait, soccer is going to takeover the American sports scene".

DarkReign is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2009, 04:37 PM
  #27
DarkReign
Registered User
 
DarkReign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,584
vCash: 500
http://www.reuters.com/article/domes...56D5UI20090714

Quote:
The healthcare overhaul proposal offered on Tuesday by U.S. House of Representatives' Democrats will include an extra 5.4 percent tax on those earning more than $1 million.
One congressional aide said that would bring the top tax rate for the wealthy to 45 percent.
This is what I was alluding to previously. At this rate, we're ****ed.

DarkReign is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2009, 04:40 PM
  #28
solo16
Registered User
 
solo16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: CT
Posts: 3,575
vCash: 728
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkReign View Post
http://www.reuters.com/article/domes...56D5UI20090714



This is what I was alluding to previously. At this rate, we're ****ed.
As much as I dislike taxing the wealthy. Our tax rate has been considerably higher in the last 50 years. Wasn't so long ago that our top tax bracket was north of 70%.

Pre-Regan (ironically the last time the national debt was this high) taxes were very very high.

Enjoy this link... http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=19

That might just get you to believe that the United States taxation system is a fair bit more durable then most of our youth realizes. DarkReign I am assuming you are fairly young (sub 30). Id be shocked about alot of this myself if I'm not a bit of a finance guy myself. (im only 25 as previously mentioned).

I cant even conceive a time when taxes were that high. Yet people were getting rich then just as they do now. Before the great depression Rockafellers were getting 70% tax rates, didnt hurt them all that much. Granted this is all somewhat misleading without factoring the corporate tax rates but that is for another time.

Another edit: Also even with a 45% tax rate on income we still have the dividend/cap gain loophole which allows a 15% tax on income from already collected wealth. (this helps the rich stay rich)


Last edited by solo16: 07-14-2009 at 05:38 PM.
solo16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2009, 08:23 PM
  #29
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by solo16 View Post
Heh, unless you are implying that they will renegotiate the CBA to slow down the growth via changing the formula you are wrong.
No.

Quote:
Certainly possible but, I cant see the players conceding to a a more owner friendly formula. So your statement is conjecture at best.
As opposed to yours...?

Quote:
It is very likely that we will all see a 80M cap in our lifetimes. It is unlikely that the CBA will be modified to prevent a 80M cap or that the NHL or American economy will collapse to prevent a 80M cap.
No.

HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2009, 08:25 PM
  #30
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
Hockey is ultimately a business, and the shareholders (owners) are going to demand nothing less than an average annual growth of 10%.
No. Sports ownership is an operation that is run at next to no profit. Value is recovered through franchise price, not year to year profit loss.

Quote:
There is a reason the NHLPA has the optional 5% kicker -- because that is expected to be the minimum acceptable realized growth on an average annual basis.
The reason is the NHL is run by idiots who did idiotic things. The 5% escalator clause was an insipid idea which has accomplished nothing but pricing low-revenue teams almost out of business.

HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2009, 09:36 PM
  #31
solo16
Registered User
 
solo16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: CT
Posts: 3,575
vCash: 728
Well it seems that HHD's best strongest skill and one he is most knowledgeable in is is ability to multi-quote rather than provide a substantive argument. I considered posting this in one of your other lame multi-qoute barrages but I figured it seemed most appropriate to wait until it was directed at me personally.

Reading between the lines and playing the guessing game that HHD finds so amusing, HHD believes that during the next CBA agreement the players will agree to terms more favorable to the owners that will prevent the cap from exceeding 80M within the next 80 years. (some board members are under 20 and it is entirely possible with science and what not they will live to 100).

Obviously if we keep this current cap system or even a substantially similar cap system we will hit that 80M well before most of us die.

The final factor to recognize that HHD seems to believe is that the CAP system wont last very long. (is this the winner!!!) There by the Cap will never reach 80M because the cap will be long gone by the time this current CBA would raise a cap to 80M. This is probably the strongest argument. My responses to this are no better than yours in support. Neither of us know. It is somewhat likely the Cap will not exist but I will assert it is considerably more likely that some form of a cap that increases at the very least indexed to inflation will remain. I support this with the fact that the trend over the last 20 years has been to implement a salary cap and world leagues seem to be tending in the direction of implementing and continuing the usage far into the future. Some reading on the extensive use and history of Salary caps in leagues... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary_cap

solo16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2009, 09:48 PM
  #32
solo16
Registered User
 
solo16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: CT
Posts: 3,575
vCash: 728
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyinHD View Post
No. Sports ownership is an operation that is run at next to no profit. Value is recovered through franchise price, not year to year profit loss.
While true in some instances, you are asserting a gross over generalization as fact. Your statement applies to most sport franchises but no where near all. I think you can find quite a few franchises that turn more than a 10% profit per year. Heres a random source listing the 5 most profitable franchises from a few years back (in a variety of sports). http://www.askmen.com/sports/busines..._business.html

Toronto was number 1 in Hockey with over 43M in profit.

Even better the forbes list of operating income from 2008. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/31/...ns_Income.html Plenty of profitable teams in there. There are 7 teams with a gross profit of over 10%. 18 total profitable teams. 12 unprofitable teams. (some teams may operate at a loss intentionally others may because of poor conditions, interestingly the NY Yankees operate at a loss in the MLB even though they generate the most revenue)


Last edited by solo16: 07-14-2009 at 09:58 PM.
solo16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2009, 09:53 PM
  #33
FissionFire
Registered User
 
FissionFire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 10,722
vCash: 500
Study England's failed bond offering if you want to see what path we are headed down as a country financially. Also note that China has been floating out there alot to have the Yuan replace the US Dollar as the international currency standard. I'm glad so many of you have rosy views of our future but world powers rise and fall, and we are in a clear decline. In many ways we are mimicing the rise and fall of Rome. It's not a matter of "if" we'll stop being the top dog, but when and how fall the fall will be. Quite simply it's inevitable but I don't think it will happen in my lifetime but very well could in my children's.

FissionFire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2009, 10:10 PM
  #34
solo16
Registered User
 
solo16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: CT
Posts: 3,575
vCash: 728
Quote:
Originally Posted by FissionFire View Post
Study England's failed bond offering if you want to see what path we are headed down as a country financially. Also note that China has been floating out there alot to have the Yuan replace the US Dollar as the international currency standard. I'm glad so many of you have rosy views of our future but world powers rise and fall, and we are in a clear decline. In many ways we are mimicing the rise and fall of Rome. It's not a matter of "if" we'll stop being the top dog, but when and how fall the fall will be. Quite simply it's inevitable but I don't think it will happen in my lifetime but very well could in my children's.
Not to discredit you FF but few comments.

Failed bond as in this year? If so its really not a big deal. US debt is still low relative to our GDP. We can make up the money by taxing the citizens pants off. The fact our government has paid off larger debts reliably has to give a bit more leeway to us. One would think at least... or hope. Who knows.

China can talk all it wants but I dont see how a Currency that is linked via a market basket approach (heavily weighted in U.S. dollars) could replace a pure U.S. Dollar currency. The Chinese money supposedly is a floating money that is linked to if i recall 7 other national currencies. Seems odd to have a currency referencing other currencies as a world stable. I say supposedly because there is some debate if the Chinese government actually lets it float and how strict it regulates it. In many ways its kept artificially stable by the Chinese government. This hush hush secret approach to monetary policy is why it wont become the national currency in my opinion.

The Rome analogy is always interesting. The whole idea that one country can rule the world and that that country would eventually be spread to thin in many ways is contradicted by Globalization. Granted the Romans had one of the first waves of globalization during their empire. The Roman empire made the world a smaller place yet even still it proved unsustainable. Maybe the flaw lies in that Rome made the rest of the world stronger via globalization so that they no longer needed Rome. In essence they fed the lion that eventually ate them. In many ways the U.S. via its globalist agenda has fed india, china and the developing world to the point they may no longer need us. In the end those kitten's may or already have become Lion's comparable to the Roman states. Though wasn't rome destroyed from within? Maybe a reference to the English empire would be more fitting. Each colony eventually became strong and rebelled.

solo16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2009, 11:12 PM
  #35
shveik
Registered User
 
shveik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,844
vCash: 500
Let me recap the thread:
1) Datsyuk's, Zetterberg's and Franzen's contracts will not be a cap problem because conservative inflation and viewership growth forecasts will make them a bargain soon enough.
2) No, we shouldn't worry about the contracts, the cap, the NHL and other insignificant things because the hyperinflation is knocking on our door, soon we'll be forced to speak chinese and the sky is falling in general.

Tough choice, I have not decided with whom to side here, but at the very least the thread has very little to do with the original topic. Good job gentlemen!

shveik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2009, 05:15 AM
  #36
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by solo16 View Post
While true in some instances, you are asserting a gross over generalization as fact. Your statement applies to most sport franchises but no where near all.
Gee, really?

Solo, you're making some terribly misguided presumptions and then basing conclusions on them which can be nothing but flawed.

So, yes, you're being a perfect 'Economist', because that's what most of them do anyway.

HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2009, 05:26 AM
  #37
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by solo16 View Post
Well it seems that HHD's best strongest skill and one he is most knowledgeable in is is ability to multi-quote rather than provide a substantive argument. I considered posting this in one of your other lame multi-qoute barrages but I figured it seemed most appropriate to wait until it was directed at me personally.


So let me see if I have this right. You, who simply make assumptions based on nothing but your own opinion, are making a substantive argument. I, who think that those assumptions and the opinion behind them is in error, am not.

Oh. Okay then.

Quote:
Reading between the lines and playing the guessing game that HHD finds so amusing, HHD believes that during the next CBA agreement the players will agree to terms more favorable to the owners that will prevent the cap from exceeding 80M within the next 80 years. (some board members are under 20 and it is entirely possible with science and what not they will live to 100).
-sigh-

First, I apprently need to get you re-connected with what was actually said.

"There won't be an 80 million dollar cap. Certianly not in the lifetime of any currently signed contract, and probably not in the lifetime of any currently living fan."

Secondly, I think a change in CBA terms is merely one of any number of things which would completely derail this idea of an 80 million dollar cap.

Thirdly, this debate originally centered around the cap rising to mitigate the impact of already-signed contracts. Is it impossible that 50, 60 or 70 years down the road the economic situation is different? Sure. Is it perhaps the dumbest thing in the history of the universe to even mention, let alone spend time discussing? Ab. So. Lutely.

Quote:
The final factor to recognize that HHD seems to believe is that the CAP system wont last very long. (is this the winner!!!) There by the Cap will never reach 80M because the cap will be long gone by the time this current CBA would raise a cap to 80M. This is probably the strongest argument. My responses to this are no better than yours in support. Neither of us know.
Which is not in any way different from any of your opinions on this matter to this point.

Quote:
It is somewhat likely the Cap will not exist but I will assert it is considerably more likely that some form of a cap that increases at the very least indexed to inflation will remain. I support this with the fact that the trend over the last 20 years has been to implement a salary cap and world leagues seem to be tending in the direction of implementing and continuing the usage far into the future.
...and those caps change significantly over time, as well. But don't mention that.

HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2009, 08:27 AM
  #38
solo16
Registered User
 
solo16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: CT
Posts: 3,575
vCash: 728
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyinHD View Post
Gee, really?

Solo, you're making some terribly misguided presumptions and then basing conclusions on them which can be nothing but flawed.

So, yes, you're being a perfect 'Economist', because that's what most of them do anyway.
While I come from a profession of sources... In many ways I find an internet forum where you need to support everything you say with a poof cumbersome and unenjoyable. So as such I state fact from my recollection as facts subject to discrediting. As for not providing sources at all if you look back in this thread its pretty obvious I have provides a few more sources than you (irc you have brought none). Granted my position has not been backed up to an infallible point, but enough so that the burden is on you to bring someactually meaningful sources to the table before you can discredit my position on lack of sources. As of yet you have failed at this.

solo16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2009, 08:36 AM
  #39
solo16
Registered User
 
solo16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: CT
Posts: 3,575
vCash: 728
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyinHD View Post


So let me see if I have this right. You, who simply make assumptions based on nothing but your own opinion, are making a substantive argument. I, who think that those assumptions and the opinion behind them is in error, am not.

Oh. Okay then.



-sigh-

First, I apprently need to get you re-connected with what was actually said.

"There won't be an 80 million dollar cap. Certianly not in the lifetime of any currently signed contract, and probably not in the lifetime of any currently living fan."

Secondly, I think a change in CBA terms is merely one of any number of things which would completely derail this idea of an 80 million dollar cap.

Thirdly, this debate originally centered around the cap rising to mitigate the impact of already-signed contracts. Is it impossible that 50, 60 or 70 years down the road the economic situation is different? Sure. Is it perhaps the dumbest thing in the history of the universe to even mention, let alone spend time discussing? Ab. So. Lutely.



Which is not in any way different from any of your opinions on this matter to this point.



...and those caps change significantly over time, as well. But don't mention that.
Maybe the biggest issue is your use of the word probably. It can be interpreted two ways and maybe it is I who am at fault for misreading your assertion.

1. There is a high percentage that the cap will never meet 80M. This is how I interpret it and if we were to correlate all facts and figures and waste our time on it the probability is "Probably" at least 50 percent.

2. Probably can be used as an expression to suggest an alternative viewpoint with no context of likelihood to happen. Ill just assume you are suggesting a possible though improbable alternative that any number of things could de-rail the cap.


Final comment on the topic is you mentioned salary caps change over time. This is true but if you were to do a statistical analysis of all leagues with caps over the 20 year era "I think" we would see a clear upward trend. That creates a presumption that caps whether intentionally or via renegotiation tend to increase in conjunction (though not exactly with) inflation.

solo16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2009, 08:58 AM
  #40
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,728
vCash: 500
Wow. A lot of people stuffing their mattresses with cash, apparently!
The market has a historical average annual return of more than 8% annually, outpacing inflation which averages more than 3% annually.

Yet there are some here that believe the NHL will fail to match either! Pro sports are amongst the most recession-proof businesses out there.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2009, 03:10 PM
  #41
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by solo16 View Post
While I come from a profession of sources... In many ways I find an internet forum where you need to support everything you say with a poof cumbersome and unenjoyable. So as such I state fact from my recollection as facts subject to discrediting. As for not providing sources at all if you look back in this thread its pretty obvious I have provides a few more sources than you (irc you have brought none). Granted my position has not been backed up to an infallible point, but enough so that the burden is on you to bring someactually meaningful sources to the table before you can discredit my position on lack of sources. As of yet you have failed at this.
Why should I need to add any sources, yours have been more harmful to your position than anything else.

You posted a general Wiki source about the salary cap which was largely irrelevant, and then you posted another source which lists how 20 of 30 NHL teams either lose money or make less money via operations than an owners 6 year old grandson could have gotten by depositing the purchase price of the team into a savings account at Comerica Bank as something that somehow contradicts my assertion that sports teams don't operate for year to year profit. Rather, they recover value via the accumluation of franchise value.

Are there exceptions? Well, no duh. Of course there are. In point of fact, however, the year over year operational profit loss of an NHL team in specific, and really sports teams in general, isn't something that is usually considered a revenue generator.

It's buying a team for 30 million and then selling it for 300 million 20 years later where the value is recovered. [b]That[/s] where the relevant function of inflation you keep harping on occurs in a meaningful way, and that's where owners will recoup whatever 'profit' they might be able to access by being a sports owner.

HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2009, 03:28 PM
  #42
solo16
Registered User
 
solo16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: CT
Posts: 3,575
vCash: 728
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyinHD View Post
Why should I need to add any sources, yours have been more harmful to your position than anything else.

You posted a general Wiki source about the salary cap which was largely irrelevant, and then you posted another source which lists how 20 of 30 NHL teams either lose money or make less money via operations than an owners 6 year old grandson could have gotten by depositing the purchase price of the team into a savings account at Comerica Bank as something that somehow contradicts my assertion that sports teams don't operate for year to year profit. Rather, they recover value via the accumluation of franchise value.

Are there exceptions? Well, no duh. Of course there are. In point of fact, however, the year over year operational profit loss of an NHL team in specific, and really sports teams in general, isn't something that is usually considered a revenue generator.

It's buying a team for 30 million and then selling it for 300 million 20 years later where the value is recovered. [b]That[/s] where the relevant function of inflation you keep harping on occurs in a meaningful way, and that's where owners will recoup whatever 'profit' they might be able to access by being a sports owner.
Two notes. 1. I never said you were wrong that teams arent run for profit. I merely said it was a over-generalization. The exception as you mentioned is roughly 1/3 of the teams. 2. I'm not so sure about your theory of owners recovering any value of term of years. Sure it happens but just as often I would think teams end up selling for less profit than their operating losses. Im not so sure that say the DRW bought today for FMV would be worth more than the inflation index in 20 years. But obviously there are exceptions.

As a final point when I have conversations on forums I am not arrogant enough to provide sources 100% to my point. I could easily cherry pick information but that wouldn't be bringing a whole lot to the discussion. The wiki source (even being a wiki, this is another debate but I am a believer that it is generally valid source but with notable exceptions ) was a fine source in that it provided some context for everyone to draw from in support of either side.

Bottom line is I am arguing the status quo and by its very nature requires less factual support than your fictional, "what if" theories. Even if my proofs/conclusions have there potential flaws (they do) the standard is considerably lower to prove things will stay the same rather than that radical changes you are predicting without ANY SUPPORT will happen. In the end the burden of proving an argument is on the person suggesting that the current norm will change. Frankly HHD you have failed to do that and your posts have merely been unsubstantiated flame bait....

But but what if...

solo16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2009, 03:37 PM
  #43
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by solo16 View Post
Final comment on the topic is you mentioned salary caps change over time. This is true but if you were to do a statistical analysis of all leagues with caps over the 20 year era "I think" we would see a clear upward trend. That creates a presumption that caps whether intentionally or via renegotiation tend to increase in conjunction (though not exactly with) inflation.
And that's the flawed presumption I have mentioned. The NFL's most recent television contracts combine for 20.4 billion freaking dollars...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_on_television (A source! I am redeemed! )

... and players receive 60% of league revenues...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3404596 (Another one! I am on FIRE!)

... and the cap is 128 million ...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4169590 (You can only hope to contain my source-posting magic!)

Compare the NFL's revenue streams to what the NHL would have to do to hit an 80 million dollar cap, considering that the league has no real television revenue outside of what the CBC pays and that as they've extended their insipid NBC deal by two years they won't have one in the near future, either.

In order to get to an 80 million dollar cap, the NHL would have to have almost 4.25 billion in HRR (based on the maxed out player share rate of 57%).

They had what... 2.6 bil last year? So, the NHL's HRR would have to increase almost 65% in order to hit that number, and we're talking about a league in which the best teams already sell out their buildings and already come very close to pricing fans right out of tickets.

In other words, absent a currently unrealized revenue stream of prodigious size there's no way in the world it's going to happen anytime in the near future. If the dollar goes the way of the Peso, hey... sure. Even figuring in a 3% rate of inflation (which is pretty high based on the past 10 or so years... wait for it...)

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/I..._currentPage=0 (BAM! Thought I was spent, did you?)

...it's going to be a looooong, looooong time before 2.6 bil becomes worth 4.25 bil.

And that's assuming the economy doesn't continue to step back, or flatten out for 3-10 years (not at all unreasonable).

Or that the NHL's onwers don't decide they'd rather have more than 43% of the money fromt heir own league.

Or that there isn't a subsequent labor stoppage which would seriously retard the growth of the NHL.

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2009, 03:40 PM
  #44
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyinHD View Post
It's buying a team for 30 million and then selling it for 300 million 20 years later where the value is recovered. [b]That[/s] where the relevant function of inflation you keep harping on occurs in a meaningful way, and that's where owners will recoup whatever 'profit' they might be able to access by being a sports owner.
Well how the heck is that going to happen without inreasing revenues... and as long as the cap is tied to revenues....

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2009, 03:46 PM
  #45
solo16
Registered User
 
solo16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: CT
Posts: 3,575
vCash: 728
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyinHD View Post
And that's the flawed presumption I have mentioned. The NFL's most recent television contracts combine for 20.4 billion freaking dollars...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_on_television (A source! I am redeemed! )

... and players receive 60% of league revenues...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3404596 (Another one! I am on FIRE!)

... and the cap is 128 million ...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4169590 (You can only hope to contain my source-posting magic!)

Compare the NFL's revenue streams to what the NHL would have to do to hit an 80 million dollar cap, considering that the league has no real television revenue outside of what the CBC pays and that as they've extended their insipid NBC deal by two years they won't have one in the near future, either.

In order to get to an 80 million dollar cap, the NHL would have to have almost 4.25 billion in HRR (based on the maxed out player share rate of 57%).

They had what... 2.6 bil last year? So, the NHL's HRR would have to increase almost 65% in order to hit that number, and we're talking about a league in which the best teams already sell out their buildings and already come very close to pricing fans right out of tickets.

In other words, absent a currently unrealized revenue stream of prodigious size there's no way in the world it's going to happen anytime in the near future. If the dollar goes the way of the Peso, hey... sure. Even figuring in a 3% rate of inflation (which is pretty high based on the past 10 or so years... wait for it...)

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/I..._currentPage=0 (BAM! Thought I was spent, did you?)

...it's going to be a looooong, looooong time before 2.6 bil becomes worth 4.25 bil.

And that's assuming the economy doesn't continue to step back, or flatten out for 3-10 years (not at all unreasonable).

Or that the NHL's onwers don't decide they'd rather have more than 43% of the money fromt heir own league.

Or that there isn't a subsequent labor stoppage which would seriously retard the growth of the NHL.

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Not a bad post mate. Over the last 20 years currency inflated 75% *using the source you provided. Assuming 0 actual growth, no lockouts, and no altering the CBA in an excessively negative fashion. Looking at 25 years max to hit your projected revenue.

Factor in the other variables its what +-15 years. So we will have a 80M cap in between 10 years and 40 years. (most of our lifetimes). Sames like a very fair projection for both sides. But yea etc etc etc.

solo16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2009, 03:47 PM
  #46
solo16
Registered User
 
solo16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: CT
Posts: 3,575
vCash: 728
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
Well how the heck is that going to happen without inreasing revenues... and as long as the cap is tied to revenues....
antiMarket forces... Its a strange thing how much a price gets inflated when the NHL refuses to let people have franchises. In the end teams end up paying quite a bit more than the team would be worth in a market system.

solo16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2009, 03:49 PM
  #47
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by solo16 View Post
Two notes. 1. I never said you were wrong that teams arent run for profit. I merely said it was a over-generalization. The exception as you mentioned is roughly 1/3 of the teams.
No. Wrong. Only 1/3rd of the teams in the source you provided made money at a rate greater than 3%. The question is... what would someone with an investment whose purpose was to make money see as a justifiyable ROI to merit a 150+ million dollar initial investment?

Quote:
Bottom line is I am arguing the status quo and by its very nature requires less factual support than your fictional, "what if" theories.
Oh good grief.

HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2009, 03:55 PM
  #48
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
Well how the heck is that going to happen without inreasing revenues... and as long as the cap is tied to revenues....
Revenues don't determine price, because people that buy sports teams don't do so with an eye on year to year profits. That's what salary caps do, mostly. Especially ones that include revenue sharing components.

In the significant majority of cases they limit the ability of a team in a league to generate substantial profit.

Now sure, if there are team/teams that are losing money like a sieve the value of the franchise will plummet (eg, the Coyotes), but as long as a sports franchise can be presumed to be relatively revenue-neutral it is the perception of the league within which the team resides that will drive the price far more than whether the team makes 6 million bucks a year or loses 6 million bucks a year.

Lots of wealthy people would love to have the write off, really.

HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2009, 04:37 PM
  #49
solo16
Registered User
 
solo16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: CT
Posts: 3,575
vCash: 728
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyinHD View Post
No. Wrong. Only 1/3rd of the teams in the source you provided made money at a rate greater than 3%. The question is... what would someone with an investment whose purpose was to make money see as a justifiyable ROI to merit a 150+ million dollar initial investment?



Oh good grief.
We meant the same. 1/3 of the teams were profitable. 2/3 lost money or had trivial profits. That is all I was saying. 2/3 doesn't equal 3/3 hence it was a generalization.

solo16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2009, 04:37 PM
  #50
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
1. Pro sports are not recession-proof.
2. We already saw signs of the recession in crowds at the Joe this year. Including the playoffs.
3. Revenues will continue to slide, quite likely, as the recession continues.
4. Prospects for rapid growth in the economy, after we bottom out, may be slim, as, hopefully, consumers are smart enough not to overextend themselves again. Hopefully, the credit-card era is coming to an end. If so, that means, even when the economy turns around, we might not see the wild spending we saw in the 90s. That could damper revenue growth when the NHL turns around.
5. Unrelated, but as a result of the massive government spending, their could be crazy inflation and dollar with less power, which would mean the cap rises ...
6. Who knows?

RedWingsNow* 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 05:31 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.