HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

NHL vs. NHLPA: Who's the real enemy?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-24-2004, 10:31 PM
  #51
Other Dave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New and improved in TO
Posts: 2,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob_paxon
I don't know why you and the other guy quoted me instead of the original poster. He is the one who said such things, to his knowledge, don't exist. I just gave an example of something like it that does exist.
Why give an example of 'something like it' when the thing itself exists?

Quote:
Are the Nucks in a bad spot?
The Nucks are apparantly raking in the cash. Why would PPV be a sign that they have fallen on hard times?

Other Dave is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 10:37 PM
  #52
garry1221
Registered User
 
garry1221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Walled Lake, Mi
Posts: 2,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to garry1221
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
And the owners want demand increased so that they can charge higher prices. The owners are always trying to increase demand so that they can take more money out of the fans wallet.



Actually, the Canucks started PPV when they were a playoff team during the 2001-2 season.

Ottawa has yet to air a PPV game.



There are plenty of fans of those teams that wish their ticket prices were cheaper so that they could see their team play.

Toronto is expected to have games on their own tv station next year which fans will have to pay a monthly fee to watch.

The owners main objective is to get as much money out of the fans ' wallets as possible while the fans, like any group of smart consumers, would like to pay as little as possible for NHL hockey.
of course every business wants to make money, but it's insane to think that when demand goes up the supply goes up with it .... there's only so many people an arena can hold without breeching the firelaws, say demand was so great that TEAM X owners decided to get a little more money and raise the ticket prices by 50 cents, that's all good and ok, but do you really believe that if year after year the owners do this that fans are actually going to suck it up and pay?.... heck no, eventually they'll start looking at what's in front of them and saying why do we keep paying this insane ammount of money, demand may set prices at the beginning, but it isn't the only thing that does. i can't remember the exact numbers, but the league said a few months ago that i think it was 2/3rds of the leaguewide revenue stream go to paying the players, and has been said time and time again, this is a gate-driven league, therefore you have to assume once players' salaries are contained, be it with a cap or luxury tax situation, the prices into the gate will fall slightly, not saying we'll see games for 10 bucks a ticket, but if salaries go down, then the reason for higher ticket prices will be severed slightly giving the fans more reason to demand either a) lower ticket prices or b) a valid reason for keeping the high prices (not just lining the owners' pockets either)

garry1221 is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 10:39 PM
  #53
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by garry1221
so by the supply/demand concept, a team like the avs/wings could keep raising ticket prices every year til they reach 100 dollars or more and people would still come to watch .... i've got news for ya .... ticket prices become astronomical like that and there isn't any way in hell that people would come to the game then, supply/demand may hold some water, but it isn't the main reason, as i said about nashville, they've got the supply/demand but the owners themselves told their fans that they'd do some sort of refund if the preds didn't make the playoffs, frankly no matter wheter nashville's a hockey hotbed or not, that wouldn't go to supply/demand, that goes directly with if we don't produce a good product then we'll give our fans who came to see a good product back some money
Do you understand the concept of supply and demand; i don't think so.

As price increases demand drops!!! So no you could not raise them infinetely.

Beakermania* is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 10:48 PM
  #54
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,965
vCash: 500
The owners losses have also been exaggerated by questionnable accounting practices.

This is paraphrased from Forbes magazine.

What happens is that many owner own both the team and the arena they play in. They operate them as two seperate businesses. The arena then charges the team an exhorbitant sum to rent the arena (ie say the going rate for arenas that are not the same owner as the team is 3mill per year, they will charge 10 mill or more).

What this does is artificially raise the teams costs, and as such lower profits or increase losses. It is artificial because the owner also controls the arena and its profits rise by the same amount. Basically he is just transferring money between accounts.

But its not just teams that own arenas who do this, say the owner owns a t.v. station (he sells the local coverage to his station for far less then the going rate other teams get)
or his other business buys advertising on the ice or boards for a reduced rate
Revenues drop in this way too.

Why do they do this?? 2 reasons,
1) its a bargainning tool, if it looks like you are losing more money than you actually are, you can get the NHLPA to submit to your demands
2) gets the fans on the owners side as they believe that they are losing all this money and the players have unreasonable demands.

Some of you have fallen for this ploy.

Beakermania* is offline  
Old
05-24-2004, 11:15 PM
  #55
zamboni
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,531
vCash: 500
Quote:
Who cares..you got to look at it from both POV's. This is a business..the players are trying to maximis their salaries while the owners are trying to maximis their revenues. There is no good or bad guy here, it's a business.
Thank you! When it comes to business, the NHLPA nor NHL are the enemies. Both sides are just doing their jobs. What good would the nhlpa be if it just gave into the NHL's demands? It is their job to get the best they can for the players. Same goes for the NHL.

zamboni is offline  
Old
05-25-2004, 01:18 AM
  #56
cws
...in the drink
 
cws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beakermania
Do you understand the concept of supply and demand; i don't think so.

As price increases demand drops!!! So no you could not raise them infinetely.
In a perfect situation, with everything being equal, then you are correct about supply and demand. But each individual situation has its own set of variables that alters the degrees of your assertion.

Economics, even basic economics, is perhaps the most frustrating discipline to learn and/or understand. Models meant to teach the concepts of economics are normally set in idealistic situations, ones you rarely (or never) see in the real world. Even the more advanced concepts, ones with a more realistic take on a given situation, have set-in assumptions and fixed variables. You rarely get a clear picture on what you're trying to figure out.

Don't take my word for it though. If you can stand the boredom, listen to top economists discussing any topic. You'll find out even the brightest minds in the field don't often agree, even on matters that seem relatively simple. It's never as cut and dried as we'd like it to be.

The best answer to questions involving economics was given to me a good while ago by one of my professors, "It depends." There is a ton of truth in that little statement, and it causes more chaos than you might imagine. Basically what I'm saying is; if you think you have the answer, chances are very good that you don't.

cws is offline  
Old
05-25-2004, 02:17 AM
  #57
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
Actually, the Canucks started PPV when they were a playoff team during the 2001-2 season.
Incorrect. The Canucks first started PPV in 97/98, and 98/99.
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/transcripts/2000/tb0907.htm

[34871] "We have some experience with pay per view in Vancouver in that we partnered with Viewer's Choice on a couple of packages, four game packages in 1997-1998 and 1998-1999. "

They then resumed after a couple of years without PPV. The fact that they made the playoffs that year is irrelevant, the reason for bringing PPV back is exactly what I said it was:

National Post Monday May 22, 2000

"Pay per-view for hockey games may be at hand in Canada. The Vancouver Canucks, Edmonton Oilers and Calgary Flames have applied for broadcasting licenses that would permit them to air games on a pay-per-view basis. The Canucks who lost about $25 million this season, reportedly want to televise at least 15 home games next year at $12 to $15 dollars each."

The Canucks were bleeding, and needed new revenue streams.

Quote:
The owners main objective is to get as much money out of the fans ' wallets as possible while the fans, like any group of smart consumers, would like to pay as little as possible for NHL hockey.
Right. But nobody is arguing that. We all agree on that. We were talking about whether owners making money is good for the fans/hockey in general.

Let's try a different tack. Do you have a favourite restaurant? Or another business you frequent often? Are they better off making money, or losing money? In my experience, when they lose money, *they close*.

Yes, we'd like to spend as little as possible. But profit isn't a dirty word. Without it, the business's we enjoy simply can't exist.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
05-25-2004, 02:32 AM
  #58
Rob Paxon
Z E M G U S
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 16,926
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Other Dave
Why give an example of 'something like it' when the thing itself exists?
I was merely scanning the thread and saw the post I replied to. The end of it, in fact. I replied to what he said at the end, not to the entire post and everything it concerned (ie. what it was in reply to). In other words, I answered generally to what I took generally. If I read into the post it was in reply to, I would have saw that he was referring to specific teams offering pay-per-view games. I didn't.

I really like your attitude though -- spunky. Especially typing out the word "sigh" as a sentence and then making it a link. The flair of it all! The poster definitely should have searched for "pay-per-view nhl games" on google so he could act like he knew they existed rather than say what he did, which is that he didn't think they existed, in the natural flow of conversation, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Other Dave
The Nucks are apparantly raking in the cash. Why would PPV be a sign that they have fallen on hard times?
"Watch 17 games that you won't find anywhere else." is what that link said. That leads me to believe they are exclusive. Why would a team make 17 games exclusive so that they can have a PPV service when they don't desperately need the money? Seems like a very poor move to me. Certainly not something with fans in mind.

Rob Paxon is offline  
Old
05-25-2004, 03:10 AM
  #59
Rob Paxon
Z E M G U S
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 16,926
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwsieben
In a perfect situation, with everything being equal, then you are correct about supply and demand. But each individual situation has its own set of variables that alters the degrees of your assertion.

Economics, even basic economics, is perhaps the most frustrating discipline to learn and/or understand. Models meant to teach the concepts of economics are normally set in idealistic situations, ones you rarely (or never) see in the real world. Even the more advanced concepts, ones with a more realistic take on a given situation, have set-in assumptions and fixed variables. You rarely get a clear picture on what you're trying to figure out.

Don't take my word for it though. If you can stand the boredom, listen to top economists discussing any topic. You'll find out even the brightest minds in the field don't often agree, even on matters that seem relatively simple. It's never as cut and dried as we'd like it to be.

The best answer to questions involving economics was given to me a good while ago by one of my professors, "It depends." There is a ton of truth in that little statement, and it causes more chaos than you might imagine. Basically what I'm saying is; if you think you have the answer, chances are very good that you don't.
Good post, but other subjects are equally frustrating when it comes to rules of thumb. There's an exception to every rule except for the one that states "everybody plays a fool".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beakermania
The only thing that will lower ticket prices is for demand for tickets to drop, not a salary cap.

[...]

Do you understand the concept of supply and demand; i don't think so.

As price increases demand drops!!! So no you could not raise them infinetely.
Yeah, and you can't raise them infinitely because you will get into prices higher than the amount of money in the world.

You said that lowering prices is the only way to increase demand. That is absurd. Having a better hockey team is, if not better, just as good a way to increase demand. Some would argue, though I'm not one, that a cap will allow more organizations to field better teams. These better, more competitive teams would lead to more people wanting to go see them play.

And to put these two posts I'm replying to together:
Beakermania says as price increases, demand drops. Cwsieben says there are exceptions to all economical notions. I assert that as price increases and the play of the team improves, demand can remain constant or even rise. It is certainly possible. While the higher price may be a negative factor, it could easily be outweighed by a more entertaining product. Just look at Tampa, I bet they sold out more the past year or two than in the years before. I wonder if they lowered their ticket prices or raised them over this period? This is just an example in the event that they lowered them .

Rob Paxon is offline  
Old
05-25-2004, 08:58 AM
  #60
Other Dave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New and improved in TO
Posts: 2,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob_paxon
I was merely scanning the thread and saw the post I replied to. The end of it, in fact.
Right. So don't respond to a post when you don't know the context and don't know the answer, and don't get all pissy when someone corrects you.

Quote:
Why would a team make 17 games exclusive so that they can have a PPV service when they don't desperately need the money? Seems like a very poor move to me. Certainly not something with fans in mind.
Because NHL franchises, as BRG aptly put it, are in the business of maximizing revenues, not chasing costs. IF PPV and lottery monies net them more cash then alternative revenue streams, and the market is robust enough to handle them, why not do it?

Other Dave is offline  
Old
05-25-2004, 09:15 AM
  #61
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Incorrect. The Canucks first started PPV in 97/98, and 98/99.
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/transcripts/2000/tb0907.htm

[34871] "We have some experience with pay per view in Vancouver in that we partnered with Viewer's Choice on a couple of packages, four game packages in 1997-1998 and 1998-1999. "

They then resumed after a couple of years without PPV. The fact that they made the playoffs that year is irrelevant, the reason for bringing PPV back is exactly what I said it was:

National Post Monday May 22, 2000

"Pay per-view for hockey games may be at hand in Canada. The Vancouver Canucks, Edmonton Oilers and Calgary Flames have applied for broadcasting licenses that would permit them to air games on a pay-per-view basis. The Canucks who lost about $25 million this season, reportedly want to televise at least 15 home games next year at $12 to $15 dollars each."

The Canucks were bleeding, and needed new revenue streams.
You left out the last part of the quote from the CRTC report:

"The reason we did that was because we were sitting with, in the first year, four games that were not going to be seen by anybody and it was frustrating to the teams to not be able to schedule those games."

Teams always look for as many revenue streams as possible. They do so because they want to bring in as much revenue as possible.

Vancouver looked towards PPV because they had games they couldn't get broadcasted any other way. Then they realised that they could make more money on PPV then on regular broadcasts so they increased the amount of PPV games and decreased the number of games they broadcasted free.

Quote:
Right. But nobody is arguing that. We all agree on that. We were talking about whether owners making money is good for the fans/hockey in general.

Let's try a different tack. Do you have a favourite restaurant? Or another business you frequent often? Are they better off making money, or losing money? In my experience, when they lose money, *they close*.

Yes, we'd like to spend as little as possible. But profit isn't a dirty word. Without it, the business's we enjoy simply can't exist.
But if that hypothetical restaurant starts becoming really popular and increases its prices, it isn't good for me. I have to spend more money to get the same product. I am better off if the restaurant doesn't get too popular while it is better for the restaurant's owner if he does get more popular.

I've got a question for you now. If a business claims it is losing money for decades but sees the value of the business increase tremedously and the business doesn't go under even if it has claimed to be losing money for decades, do you continue to believe the business's claims that it is losing money?

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
05-25-2004, 11:39 AM
  #62
cws
...in the drink
 
cws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 1,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Good post, but other subjects are equally frustrating when it comes to rules of thumb. There's an exception to every rule except for the one that states "everybody plays a fool".
I know many other fields are more tricky than economics, I just happen to know a bit more about it than I do other areas. When I was in college, I ran across a scientific discipline that made economics look like basic math. But debating the highs and lows of physical chemistry would probably steer this conversation into a place that no one wants, so I'll leave it be.

And I'll be the first to admit that I've played the fool many times. It's why a lot of my posts on subjects like this have a disclaimer, basically saying I don't have enough info to give a straight answer and I won't pretend otherwise.

cws is offline  
Old
05-25-2004, 06:34 PM
  #63
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
Vancouver looked towards PPV because they had games they couldn't get broadcasted any other way. Then they realised that they could make more money on PPV then on regular broadcasts so they increased the amount of PPV games and decreased the number of games they broadcasted free.
Yes, that was the justification for the *first* set of PPV games. But not the recent set. The recent set of PPV games has been full of teams like Toronto, Detroit, Colorado, etc. Prime games, that the team has been holding back from normal cable television.

I tried to warn people in '97 that they'd better not order the PPV games, or they'd be losing games in the future. Alas, people were too stupid to listen to me.

Quote:
I've got a question for you now. If a business claims it is losing money for decades but sees the value of the business increase tremedously and the business doesn't go under even if it has claimed to be losing money for decades, do you continue to believe the business's claims that it is losing money?
I'm unaware of anyone who's claiming teams have been losing money for decades. The huge losses are basically a recent occurence, with the rise in power of the NHLPA, and the massive explosion in salaries of the last 10-15 years. Before that, the NHL made money hand over fist, and completely took advantage of the players.

Further, as far as I know (though I am not a tax accountant), there are tax advantages etc that do arise from losing money in one part of your billion dollar empire. So keeping a team that's losing money can be beneficial. Things like this explain why a guy like John McCaw wants to sell the Canucks now they are profitable, and not when they were losing money a few years ago.

As for believing, how much more evidence does it take? We've had two bankruptcies, multiple teams move to new cities, every independent investigation of the books confirms the losses (only the degree varies). Yet the conspiracy fans run around yelling "Two sets of books! Secret revenue!"

PecaFan is offline  
Old
05-25-2004, 09:28 PM
  #64
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
As for believing, how much more evidence does it take? We've had two bankruptcies,
One because the owner was a crook who was stealing from the business. The other because the owner never put any capital into the business while the rink he also owned made more money then the team lost.

Quote:
multiple teams move to new cities
And that didn't happen in the old days when you claimed they were making big money? Didn't Kansas City move to Denver who moved to New Jersey? Or how about Oakland to Cleveland? Or even further back Ottawa to St Louis or Hamilton to New York?

Quote:
every independent investigation of the books confirms the losses (only the degree varies). Yet the conspiracy fans run around yelling "Two sets of books! Secret revenue!"
If the NHL is so sure about their losses why haven't they provided the books to the PA? Why do they commission a report and not let the PA know about it until after the results come back from their paid consultant? Why don't they let the PA pay for half the commission?

If the people running the NHL are losing money why don't they fire the idiots who are losing the money instead of trying to change the system?

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
05-26-2004, 01:31 PM
  #65
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nordique
Here's what the players should/would ask:

If an owner isn't making enough revenue to support high player salaries...why does he agree to pay such salaries in the first place?
Because revenue wont increase if they dont put an exciting product on the ice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nordique
Why should players have to forcibly do for the owners what they cannot do for themselves - rein in their salaries as expenses for owners?
It sucks but its true. The players are expected to have their salaries controlled to protect the owners from themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nordique
If an owner makes $40 million in revenue, annually, why is he agreeing to $50 million worth of salaries for players? Hire an accountant. These are all millionaires hundreds of times over, surely they know how a balance sheet operates.
Here's where you lost me. So what does he do? Trade away $10 million worth of players? Then he only makes $30 million in revenue due to having a crappy team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nordique
You don't want to pay Forsberg $11 million, Colorado? Fine, don't qualify him at $9 million or whatever it costs and see what the open market fetches. If he then signs in, say, Buffalo for $12 million per year and then the Sabres ownership group complains that salaries are too high...is that Forsberg's fault?
No, its not Forsbergs fault, but Anaheim tried that, then went out and signed Fedorov since they had no marquee player. If they let Kariya walk, then didnt sign Fedorov, how many fans do you think would have shown up?


Quote:
Originally Posted by nordique
It's not collusion. That would be Bettman forcing the owners to rein in salaries through under the table negotiating like baseball did in the 1980s. Players will understand that if the salaries are dropping proportionate with the dropping of revenues, that's a function of economics...but if player salaries keep increasing while teams keep crying poor, well, something is off and it's not the players' fault!
It isnt the players fault that Gaborik and Comrie both refused their contracts and held out (for 2 examples)??? Both teams held their ground (for a while) and both teams missed the playoffs and missed out on playoff revenue. Every year theres a long list of holdouts. This isnt the players fault???

You make it sound like the owners dont have to pay the players, but if they dont, fans dont show up and buy tickets and they miss out on playoff revenue.

If you dont think its the players fault, youre naive (sorry). Its business. In business, you look out for yourselves. In business, the biggest arseholes and the most successful. The players are looking out for themselves, the owners are looking out for themselves. Both groups are screwing the fans.

At least I've seen different sources showing how much money the NHL lost. I've heard the NHLPA debunk that, but I dont hear their reasoning. Just because they dont like the results, they think all the audits (LA Kings, Wall Street, Levitt...) are false.

The quote I like is...

Quote:
Originally Posted by djhn579
The owners take almost all the risks, and get little return. The players take some risks (injury) but get a very good return. Why should the owners have to put up with that?

Cawz is offline  
Old
05-26-2004, 04:33 PM
  #66
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
One because the owner was a crook who was stealing from the business. The other because the owner never put any capital into the business while the rink he also owned made more money then the team lost.
Rigas stole *from* the cable company, to use the money for personal extravagances, one of which was the hockey team. Not the other way around.

Got a cite for your claim that the Ottawa rink made more money than the team lost? Sounds extremely unlikely to me.

Quote:
And that didn't happen in the old days when you claimed they were making big money? Didn't Kansas City move to Denver who moved to New Jersey? Or how about Oakland to Cleveland? Or even further back Ottawa to St Louis or Hamilton to New York?
Obviously not everybody was making money. Those clubs moved because of lack of fan support. Cleveland, California, etc were all around the 5 to 6000 mark in attendance. Modern moves are not because of a lack of fan support, Minnesota, Winnipeg, Quebec etc were all in the 13 to 14,000 range. They had loyal fans, in nearly full buildings, with revenue essentially maxed out, and they were still losing millions.

Quote:
If the NHL is so sure about their losses why haven't they provided the books to the PA? Why do they commission a report and not let the PA know about it until after the results come back from their paid consultant? Why don't they let the PA pay for half the commission?
Right. Like the PA would ever agree to that. You know as well as I do that they *don't want* to be given the books. Because then they'd have to admit the numbers are right. Or, provide concrete proof that the numbers were wrong. Far, far better for them to simply claim "the numbers are wrong" without ever having to back it up.

Quote:
If the people running the NHL are losing money why don't they fire the idiots who are losing the money instead of trying to change the system?
Surely you understand that the team owners and managers aren't NHL employees?

Further, even if they were, the simple fact remains that many many teams are losing money, not because of idiots and poor decisions, but because of the system.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
05-26-2004, 05:28 PM
  #67
ak47
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 36
vCash: 500
The guiltiest parties in this whole CBA mess are 1) owners of big market teams and 2) player agents. The majority of players are not businessmen, they are hockey players that rely on the advice of their agents. The problem occurs when big market owners overpay for assets because 1) they can (see Glen Sather and Booby Clarke) and 2) they are not hockey people - (see Ted Leonsis and Charles Wang). Because of this, the market is saturated with overpaid hockey players that artificially set the bar too high for small markets to compete financially.

The solution to this problem is to create a system that penalizes "poor" spending and rewards "good" spending. The challenge of the NHL and NHLPA is to define what "poor" and "good" spending is. There are several things that a new CBA can do to ensure that bad contracts are not consistently handed out - rookie salary caps (with no lucractive bonus clauses), a maximum of 3 year contracts, buyout provisions in deals if players are not performing. I'm not suggesting a luxury tax; a performance tax on both the team and the agent based on how the player performs is more like it. I know if I don't do what I promised to do at work I'll soon find myself out of a job.

ak47 is offline  
Old
05-26-2004, 06:19 PM
  #68
Coburnfan05
Registered User
 
Coburnfan05's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SOB Southern Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,103
vCash: 500
neither are the enemy.

The owners as buisness owners have the right to make a profit on thier investment and players have the right to make as much money as someone is willing to pay them.

There is no way that this can be blamed solely on either party.

Coburnfan05 is offline  
Old
05-26-2004, 06:40 PM
  #69
Other Dave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New and improved in TO
Posts: 2,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GagsIsDaMan
There is no way that this can be blamed solely on either party.
I think it's fair to say that if one side is willing to go as far as shutting down hockey, that side can be seen as blameworthy.

Other Dave is offline  
Old
05-26-2004, 06:45 PM
  #70
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
If the NHL is so sure about their losses why haven't they provided the books to the PA? Why do they commission a report and not let the PA know about it until after the results come back from their paid consultant? Why don't they let the PA pay for half the commission?

If the people running the NHL are losing money why don't they fire the idiots who are losing the money instead of trying to change the system?
They did provide the books of 4 hockey teams to the PA. Then the PA said those books weren't correct because all revenues brought in by the rink weren't accounted for (ie: rinks are often accounted as a different entity than the hockey team because their activities go farther than hockey, also rinks could be profitable without a hockey team). You'll never get anywhere when the PA asks that money coming in from independant events become "hockey revenue". The PA, regardless of access to the books or not, will always claim the owners are lying, whether in their books or in their words.

The Levitt audit has been done well and uses generally accepted accounting principles. If the PA can't even start working with that, it just means that they'll fight anything at all.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
05-26-2004, 06:48 PM
  #71
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Other Dave
I think it's fair to say that if one side is willing to go as far as shutting down hockey, that side can be seen as blameworthy.
And what can the owners do? When business can't make a profit, they close, that's it. Since the player salaries are responsible for not making a profit, then their unwillingness to work with the owners will be part of the cause of the closing.

If the NHL said it folded tomorrow, I couldn't blame the owners too hard, after all it's their money that's on the line. If the players can't react until it's too late, they will be the only ones to be blamed for not "believing" the owners were in deep.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
05-26-2004, 06:49 PM
  #72
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Rigas stole *from* the cable company, to use the money for personal extravagances, one of which was the hockey team. Not the other way around.
And how do you know he wasn't stealing from the team? If he was crying poor, would you believe him?

Quote:
Got a cite for your claim that the Ottawa rink made more money than the team lost? Sounds extremely unlikely to me.
Here's one


The key parts:
The Senators lost $15-million last season

The Corel Centre has done better. It had an $18-million profit in each of the past two years.

Quote:
Obviously not everybody was making money. Those clubs moved because of lack of fan support. Cleveland, California, etc were all around the 5 to 6000 mark in attendance. Modern moves are not because of a lack of fan support, Minnesota, Winnipeg, Quebec etc were all in the 13 to 14,000 range. They had loyal fans, in nearly full buildings, with revenue essentially maxed out, and they were still losing millions.
If it wasn't due to fan support, why did they move?

They moved because another market looked more profitable then their current market. A new CBA isn't going to change that. The NFL has more teams relocating then the NHL.

Quote:
Right. Like the PA would ever agree to that. You know as well as I do that they *don't want* to be given the books. Because then they'd have to admit the numbers are right. Or, provide concrete proof that the numbers were wrong. Far, far better for them to simply claim "the numbers are wrong" without ever having to back it up.
That was the PA's first response when they heard about the report!

It would be easy for the NHL to go public with their books so that the PA would be forced to look at them. But the NHL hasn't done so. I wonder why?

Quote:
Surely you understand that the team owners and managers aren't NHL employees?

Further, even if they were, the simple fact remains that many many teams are losing money, not because of idiots and poor decisions, but because of the system.
Team managers are employees. They can be fired. And if the owner is stupid, like say, Ted Leonsis was bringing in Jagr, then the owner deserves to lose money. If you're stupid and you lose money, you shouldn't try to change the system. You should get out of that business and let someone with more intelligence run it.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
05-26-2004, 07:08 PM
  #73
Coburnfan05
Registered User
 
Coburnfan05's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SOB Southern Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Other Dave
I think it's fair to say that if one side is willing to go as far as shutting down hockey, that side can be seen as blameworthy.
But that's the thing you can't say one side will be shutting down hockey.

They both have valid arguments for a new CBA.

Coburnfan05 is offline  
Old
05-26-2004, 07:18 PM
  #74
djhn579
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
And how do you know he wasn't stealing from the team? If he was crying poor, would you believe him?

This is all coming out in the indictment and the ongoing trial about how Rigas was taking money out of the cable company for personnel expenses. We don't have to beleive Rigas when we get to read all about it.

Here's one

As someone previously pointed out, the arena has other events going on besides hockey.


The key parts:
The Senators lost $15-million last season

The Corel Centre has done better. It had an $18-million profit in each of the past two years.



If it wasn't due to fan support, why did they move?

They moved because another market looked more profitable then their current market. A new CBA isn't going to change that. The NFL has more teams relocating then the NHL.

In most cases, the owners cite that the fan support either wasn't there, or that even with great fan support, the team was not able to make a profit because the arena did not have the ability to generate the revenue needed to support the higher contracts that the team was forced to pay. There is a reason that most of the arenas in the league have been built in the last twenty years (I don't have the exact dates, but I believe Pittsburgh has the oldest arena...

That was the PA's first response when they heard about the report!

It would be easy for the NHL to go public with their books so that the PA would be forced to look at them. But the NHL hasn't done so. I wonder why?

Regardkless of what the NHL shows the NHLPA, they will claim that there is a second set of books. If your never going to be believed, whats the point in showing the books?

Team managers are employees. They can be fired. And if the owner is stupid, like say, Ted Leonsis was bringing in Jagr, then the owner deserves to lose money. If you're stupid and you lose money, you shouldn't try to change the system. You should get out of that business and let someone with more intelligence run it.
As I mentioned before, the team has to take risks to get players in that can win hockey games. If the players perform as expected, they turn a profit. If the players don't perform, the owners don't make a profit. Unfortunately, the players don't lose money when they don't perform...

And somethings are out of a teams ability to control. If a few owners pay a player more than they deserve, then other players hold out for the same amount of money. The owner essentially has to match that contract demand or trade him to someone that will match the contract demand. In either case, the owner loses

djhn579 is offline  
Old
05-26-2004, 08:50 PM
  #75
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob_paxon
You said that lowering prices is the only way to increase demand.
I never said that. I said increasing prices would lower demand and decreasing prices would raise demand, i never said anything about the quality of the team improving or regressing. Read it again.

I also said that a cap would not decrease prices, because i salary cap does not decrease demand.

Beakermania* is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:28 PM.

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.