| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Guest9888
( )
|
 Posted - 11/04/2012 : 15:13:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Where there is a big pot of money on the table and one side the of the table is talking most of the money, eventually the other side of the table will leave. It's hard to argue that the current agreement is slanted in favour of the players. The right thing to do is not slant it back to the owner. The right thing to do is make it fair for both sides.
Regardless of the eventual agreement, the owners are going to find a way to screw it up by finding loopholes to outbid each other for average players at superstar prices and superstars for a billion dollars for lifetime contracts. Then they'll blame the players for making too much money and revenue has gone down because nobody is watching hockey anymore.
The 2004 CBA was supposedly fair for both sides too. Look how that was spun. Like the shampoo bottle says, wash, rinse and repeat. |
 |
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2012 : 09:00:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9888
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Where there is a big pot of money on the table and one side the of the table is talking most of the money, eventually the other side of the table will leave. It's hard to argue that the current agreement is slanted in favour of the players. The right thing to do is not slant it back to the owner. The right thing to do is make it fair for both sides.
Regardless of the eventual agreement, the owners are going to find a way to screw it up by finding loopholes to outbid each other for average players at superstar prices and superstars for a billion dollars for lifetime contracts. Then they'll blame the players for making too much money and revenue has gone down because nobody is watching hockey anymore.
The 2004 CBA was supposedly fair for both sides too. Look how that was spun. Like the shampoo bottle says, wash, rinse and repeat.
I would agree with everything except for the comment '"he 2004 CBA was supposed to be fair for both sides too." In fact, I disagree completely with this statement. Rolling back from 74% to 57% of HRR for players’ salaries was massive, but still not equitable. Not at all. Until the players and owners are sharing HRR evenly, it is not fair for both sides. If the owners would have pushed for 50/50 back in '04 they would still be on strike. It was never going to happen.
So the deal is 2004 was the best deal the owner could have gotten at the time, but it was far from fair. Secondly, no one could have predicted more than 50% revenue growth over the length. It is unprecedented in any of the major sports and if I recall a story I read, the only global sport that grew faster than the NHL in that period of time was the UFC.
Conditions change and impact deals. Had the economics gone the other way and the players saw a year over year slide in their income they too would have argued for something different.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
Guest4350
( )
|
Posted - 11/05/2012 : 10:44:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I would agree with everything except for the comment '"he 2004 CBA was supposed to be fair for both sides too." In fact, I disagree completely with this statement. Rolling back from 74% to 57% of HRR for players’ salaries was massive, but still not equitable. Not at all. Until the players and owners are sharing HRR evenly, it is not fair for both sides. If the owners would have pushed for 50/50 back in '04 they would still be on strike. It was never going to happen.
So the deal is 2004 was the best deal the owner could have gotten at the time, but it was far from fair. Secondly, no one could have predicted more than 50% revenue growth over the length. It is unprecedented in any of the major sports and if I recall a story I read, the only global sport that grew faster than the NHL in that period of time was the UFC.
Conditions change and impact deals. Had the economics gone the other way and the players saw a year over year slide in their income they too would have argued for something different.
Like the original poster said, when the next CBA expires the owners and their supporters will spout the same argument, it wasn't a fair agreement, it was the best one they could get. If the owners wanted fair, then the locked out would still be on.
I wonder what other items the owners will want to change to the CBA to make it fair in 2019, then 2026 and so on. Neither side care about the game or the fans. So lock out as much as long as needed to get a fair deal.
My guess, the HRR definition will change next time cutting the players take even if the split is 50/50. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2012 : 11:02:07
|
I would venture to say that the owners and players both do care about the game. What other reason could there be for both sides to both so passionate fight for a system for long term sustainability?? Both sides want the NHL around for a long time and both sides understand that both the owners and players need to make money for that to happen. Unfortunately, both sides have a different opinion on how to make that happen.
As far as they not caring about the fans?? Maybe. However I think both sides understand where the money actually comes from. The problem is that stream is wide and deep. Specifically in Canada, for every fan that gets pissed off at high ticket prices and stops going to the game there are 4-5 more waiting to buy the now vacant season ticket. Furthermore, for any fan who thinks they are sending a message by not going to games but watches the game on TV is a fool. The off-shooting revenue from TV deals, marketing, and advertising is equal the revenue from ticket sales. If you do the math on your local team with ticket prices and average attendance you will quickly see that only about 1/2 of the NHL revenues come from ticket sales.
You are paying for the NHL every time you buy a ticket and every time you turn on your TV.
As far as what happens at the end of the next one, who knows?? The deal that forced the lock out in '94 was followed by 2 more CBA's that were signed without a work stoppage. It's depends on a number of factors. Some of which are uncontrollable such as the economy. Others are very controllable such as owners circumventing the salary cap. I agree whole-heartedly that the NHL requires a structures process for penalizing teams who offer contracts outside the spirit of the CBA. These extremely long term and massive agreements are not in the spirit of the CBA at all.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2012 : 11:52:32
|
Now that you are done with the sillyness of who buys what equipment arguement. BTW there are many manufacturers who would supply players with there products for the advertising alone. Maybe not every player would get the products, but the owners are receiving something to dictate what product the players promote.
The economics are broke because the Owners are linking salary to revenue averages and spending based on the average regardless of there own economic climate. The Owners are breaking the system by spending beyond limits and are the one's insisting on the limits. The players can't be the ones to hold the system accountable because the are the commodities. Commodities have a fixed value. Stop assuming that an owners profit in a franchise begins and ends with HRR with the profit and loss ledgers they are showing the union. It may not be HRR that makes owning a NHL team worth it for the investment. I for one trust those quotes less than I would a signed contract value in the current NHL.
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
It doesn't matter if you are pro-player or pro-owner, no one can argue that the economics are broken. We are talking about $3.3 billion and there has to be a way for everyone to make a fair amount of money.
The player need to get paid and the owners need to make money.
You can argue until you are blue in the face about the owners lying about their profits or the contract is signed but you have to honor it or players are getting paid too much.
The bottom line is this:
Where there is a big pot of money on the table and one side the of the table is talking most of the money, eventually the other side of the table will leave. It's hard to argue that the current agreement is slanted in favour of the players. The right thing to do is not slant it back to the owner. The right thing to do is make it fair for both sides.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
|
Edited by - JOSHUACANADA on 11/05/2012 11:54:34 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2012 : 12:43:45
|
Joshua, help me understand this:
Do the players not want to retain 57% of the HRR of the NHL, or are they asking for 57% of their own teams HRR??
The math is very simple:
$3.3 billion in revenues
57% players share
$1.88 billion to the players
$62.7 million average salary to achieve the players share
Floor is -$8 mil of the average and ceiling is +$8 mil of average
That means each team HAS to pay no less than $54.7 million of salary to players each year.
That means the average player makes $2.4 million.
Tell me how that is the owners fault?? He has to pay at least $54.7 million. Period. What is your argument?? That the owners want this system???
Finally, can you please share with my a single commodity of any kind that has a fixed value. Just one.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2012 : 13:25:01
|
I agree the average team HRR is what is holding the profit teams back and making the struggling teams struggle more. If you want to continue to quote from the % of HRR and talk about the floor/ceiling why not change the floor to ceiling spread and delink the average teams revenue from player salaries. If they can't afford the superstars based on revenue then they shouldn't be trying to sign them.
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Joshua, help me understand this:
Do the players not want to retain 57% of the HRR of the NHL, or are they asking for 57% of their own teams HRR??
The math is very simple:
$3.3 billion in revenues
57% players share
$1.88 billion to the players
$62.7 million average salary to achieve the players share
Floor is -$8 mil of the average and ceiling is +$8 mil of average
That means each team HAS to pay no less than $54.7 million of salary to players each year.
That means the average player makes $2.4 million.
Tell me how that is the owners fault?? He has to pay at least $54.7 million. Period. What is your argument?? That the owners want this system???
Finally, can you please share with my a single commodity of any kind that has a fixed value. Just one.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
|
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2012 : 13:28:19
|
| As far as a fixed commodity price, the day you sign for the commodity you fix its price, do you not. You buy a bushel of product for x amount of dollars at market price. You dont go back and say, hi I'd like to pay you 24% of the agreed amount price. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2012 : 13:54:14
|
You are 100% correct, however commodity prices change based on the economic factors and not on a fixed system such as 57% of the revenue.
Take oil for example. Oil trades on a month to month basis. So you can buy oil today for $86 a barrel for Feb delivery. But March delivery will be different. It could be $50 or it could be a $100. But it’s not based on x% of production or GDP, or anything else. It’s based on economic factors. Most importantly, no commodity sells at a rate less than production costs. If that happens, trading stops.
By the way, that situation of "hey, let's pay 24% less than agreed" happens all the time. For example, if you are a major corporation and you buy mass amount of anything from another country at an agreed upon price and all of a sudden their currency dives or your currency increases then concessions are made. How about when GM had to claim bankruptcy?? Prior to that action the company approached the union to get consessions. Too bad for those people that they said no and once the company was in bankruptcy protection the union lost more for their members than if they would have agreed to the first concession.
It happens every single day in the business world. It happens when economic indicators change the environment.
Sound familiar?? Kind of like an off the charts revenue increase alters the financial landscape??? Or when commodity prices reach a point where they are no longer cost effective???
What happens then?? The market corrects itself. Most often it is a violent correction. Black Friday as an example.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
Guest9888
( )
|
Posted - 11/06/2012 : 05:09:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
You are 100% correct, however commodity prices change based on the economic factors and not on a fixed system such as 57% of the revenue.
Take oil for example. Oil trades on a month to month basis. So you can buy oil today for $86 a barrel for Feb delivery. But March delivery will be different. It could be $50 or it could be a $100. But it’s not based on x% of production or GDP, or anything else. It’s based on economic factors. Most importantly, no commodity sells at a rate less than production costs. If that happens, trading stops.
By the way, that situation of "hey, let's pay 24% less than agreed" happens all the time. For example, if you are a major corporation and you buy mass amount of anything from another country at an agreed upon price and all of a sudden their currency dives or your currency increases then concessions are made. How about when GM had to claim bankruptcy?? Prior to that action the company approached the union to get consessions. Too bad for those people that they said no and once the company was in bankruptcy protection the union lost more for their members than if they would have agreed to the first concession.
It happens every single day in the business world. It happens when economic indicators change the environment.
Sound familiar?? Kind of like an off the charts revenue increase alters the financial landscape??? Or when commodity prices reach a point where they are no longer cost effective???
What happens then?? The market corrects itself. Most often it is a violent correction. Black Friday as an example.
The NHL only behaves like a corporation when the argument suits it. It loses money, it will call itself a corporation. It enters and signs ridiculous contracts with players, it is a team wanting to win.
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2012 : 10:15:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA
I agree the average team HRR is what is holding the profit teams back and making the struggling teams struggle more. If you want to continue to quote from the % of HRR and talk about the floor/ceiling why not change the floor to ceiling spread and delink the average teams revenue from player salaries. If they can't afford the superstars based on revenue then they shouldn't be trying to sign them.
Joshua, the system you are suggesting is the system that was in place before the hard cap came in. This system has been used at one time or anyother in every pro sport and every one of them have tossed it out because it doesn't work. There are various other tools that are employed, be it hard cap, luxury tax, etc. But every NA sport has a component of players salaries linked to revenue.
Removing that link essentially kills the salary cap. It's a non-starter. What other ideas do you have.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
Guest4350
( )
|
Posted - 11/06/2012 : 13:06:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Joshua, the system you are suggesting is the system that was in place before the hard cap came in. This system has been used at one time or anyother in every pro sport and every one of them have tossed it out because it doesn't work. There are various other tools that are employed, be it hard cap, luxury tax, etc. But every NA sport has a component of players salaries linked to revenue.
Removing that link essentially kills the salary cap. It's a non-starter. What other ideas do you have.
2004 owners: We pay you players too much. We want cost certainty and link your salaries to revenue. That way you don't cost too much.
2004 players: Fine we'll take the 24% pay cut and work with your cost certainty. We don't like it.
2012 owners: We pay you too much because due to the cost certainty we negotiated back in 2004. We are forced to pay the players a fixed amount of our revenue and that is too much.
2012 Josh: I the owners don't like the cost certainty so much then get rid of it. Owners don't have to pay any fixed percentage of the revenue at all. Owners control your cost and you can make a whack load of profit and take in whatever percentage of revenue you'd like.
2012 Beans: Owners don't know how to control their costs without the cost certainty. They like the cost certainty too much.
2012 Guest: Who, what or where is the problem if the owners don't know how to control their costs?
2012 Beans and Owners: Definitely the players are the problem.
2019 Owner: We don't like the definition of revenue because it forces us to pay the players too much.
2019 fans: Here we f'ing go again. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2012 : 10:02:29
|
You missed some pretty significant stuff that happened in the mid 90's. Let me refresh your memory:
1994 Owners - Players salaries are getting out of control. In some cases the owners are paying more than 100% of their revnues to players. Can we have a salary cap
1994 Player - No, absolutely not. No salary cap. Owners have to manage contract on their own.
1994 - Strike/Lockout(doesn't matter the point is no hockey)
1994 Owners - Ok, we will try this again without a salary cap
1994 Player - Good, we'll play hockey.
1994-2004 Rich Owners - We will spend and spend and spend until the cows come home. We will pay people like Bobby Holik $10 million year and try to buy championships.
1994-2004 - Poor Owners - We can't afford to have a team. We gotta figure something out or we will have to fold or move.
1994-2004 NHL - Move Winnipeg, Hartford, Minnesota, etc and see if they can make money somewhere else. Nope, can't make money in these places either. Better fix this salary cap thing.
2004 NHL - Salary Cap time
2004 Player - No
2004 - Strike/Lockout(doesn't matter the point is no hockey)
2004 Player - Ok, cap but pay is 57% of revenues.
2004 - Ok, we will try this and see how is works
2012 Owners - The system is ok but needs to be better. We need to get rev share to 50/50 and define rules so the owners cannot cirvumvent the CBA as easily as they can today.
2012 Player - Nope. Our money, our contracts. We don't care if the league can't make money. We need to get paid.
2012 - Strike/Lockout(doesn't matter the point is no hockey)
Finally, your story is very wrong in one spot. I never said the players are the only problem. Both sides are the problem. The players are making too much. 50/50 is fair. However, I have said it before and I'll say it again, until the league takes control of the NHL and punishes owners for negotiating deals outside the spirit of the CBA then we will be in this situation again. BUT, they have to get to 50/50 regardless.
So the end of your story I agree with. We will be back to the here we go again point. But we can't get there until we have hockey again and that won't happen without 50/50.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
Edited by - Beans15 on 11/07/2012 11:53:09 |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2012 : 12:44:11
|
In my opinion only, I totally agree that there has to be concessions on the NHLPA's part to reach a better balanced revenue share, and I personally think 50/50 would be generous on the owner's part.
If what I have read is at all true though, that is only part of the issue, there are desired salary rollbacks and deferrals, and other verbage to essentially state that owners not only want to devalue future player worth, a value they initiated with their ridiculous signings, but to also devalue existing contracts. I am assuming that is what all these 'make whole' discussions are referring to, and if that is the case, how can the players not make a stand on that? A week before they locked out they players, Gm's were still signing outrageous contracts, did they do it knowing this would be part of their demands? Dirty frickin pool if so.
The numbers have been thrown around that the owners are making profit, just not as much as some players. To increase that profit share, they want to reduce the overall amount the players will get(which is fine, that is what negotiations are for), but to affect existing signed contracts?
How many of us would sit well with having not only our future earnings, but our current earnings affected negatively, by an employer who is not necessarily losing money, but isn't making as much as they say they should?
Again, I agree that the players will have to make concessions to help owners garner more profit in spite of themselves, but it certainly seems heavy handed to do it in the fashion they have, by locking out the players, instead of bargaining in faith ONCE THE CURRENT CONTRACT EXPIRES.
I capitalized that to ensure that it is understood that a CBA is valid to that final date, and there is no legal obligation for parties to partake in negotiations until then, and that the expiring CBA is still 'law of the land', until another one is negotiated.
Before anyone jumps all over me, I agree, it is assinine for us as fans, to be dragged through million and billionaires fighting over money, but I believe the players have a legitimate beef.
Any employee is only paid what the employer is willing to pay them. There is no onus on the employee to ask for less to assist with the financials of the business, it is the employers responsibility to ensure salaries are in line with fiscal guidelines, not the other way around.
My opinion only, but the owners are to blame for their own failures, and the players are taking heat for it, and I disagree with that. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2012 : 08:22:36
|
OK, couple of points to Mr. FER.
Firstly, I don't disagree that SOME owners were absolutely playing dirty pool this summer. The key word is Some. You can't paint the entire 30 team group with one brush when the issue is really a handful.
I agree that if you and I were being asked for a rollback by a company that was not losing money that it would not sit will. But you are forgetting that MOST of the NHL is losing money. 18 or 30 teams is more nearly 60% of the teams losing money. Think about the fact that TO, MONT, and NY made $170 million in profits but the NHL as a whole made $128 million. What does that mean the other 27 teams on contributing to the league??
They may not be losing money as a whole but they are literally one team away from being in huge trouble.
I have now posed these questions around 20 times without a single person providing a response. I'll try it again.
The NHL owner HAS to pay at least $54 million in salary. They don't have a choice in that matter. They may not want to, but they have to. The are contractually obligated to do that.
How is the owner at fault for having to pay to a salary floor???
Moral of the story - The CBA is an agreement between both the OWNERS and the PLAYERS. The owners are following the agreement, so how are they the only one's to blame??
A+B=C. If the agreement is between the owners (a) and the players (b) then how can they not both be responsible for the problems and the solutions???
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
Edited by - Beans15 on 11/08/2012 08:28:08 |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2012 : 09:18:24
|
I think the question has been answered a few times already. The NHL runs the league. They seem to refuse to consider moving money losers to markets that could change that. They seem to refuse to consider contraction.
They have locked out the players 3 times straight to get the concessions they wanted and more importantly, agreed to, to continue business.
I would certainly not paint all owners with the same brush, as I am sure there are currently some owners who are wanting nothing more than to get the games going as is.
The owners are following the agreement, but the 'company', for lack of a better word, seems to be conducting bad business overall by allowing certain money losing 'divisions', again for lack of a better word, to continue to operate in situations where they can't be profitable. I don't know how much say the NHLPA has in those decisions, and that seems to me anyways, to point directly back to the NHL and by extension, the owners.
See article 5 Management Rights in the current CBA and it states all of that fairly clearly to me anyways.
Yes the players have some responsibility to the cost, but again, 3 times they have been locked and they are also following the CBA. You mentioned there is no difference regarding hockey being played as far as lockout vs. strike, and I agree, but there is a huge difference as to who is making demands for change given each situation.
In each lockout situation, were the players making gains, or giving concessions to get back to business? At the time, to me anyways, the players made the concessions required and the owners and league continued to screw it up.
Yes, there are money losers who are in tight to pay the minimum salary cap, why are they in those markets if that is the case? Revenue goes up, same teams keep having troubles. If the league would operate with the best considerations for all teams, instead of their select few, all of this may be moot.
Again, I am not sure how the NHLPA can right that wrong, other than continuing to give concessions to a bad business model.
I can only speak for my situation and opinion, but as an employee facing the same scenario, I wouldn't be too quick to want to give up more again, either. |
Edited by - fat_elvis_rocked on 11/08/2012 09:30:46 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2012 : 10:09:59
|
First off, I don't think you can reasonable say that the owners got the concession they wanted. I think you could look back in every lockout and see the owners did not get what they wanted to go into. They got some if what they wanted, but not all of it. Even in this situation they will not get everything they want. So don't pull that crap that the players gave up everything. The owner gave from their side as well. People generally don't remember those things, or convieniently forget. 
So FER, help me understand how and when you pull the plug on a money losing team?? One year?? Two years?? 5 years?? What it is??Before you answer that question, remember that 27 of 30 NHL teams have reported at least on season of loss in the past 20 seasons. Remember that some of the strongest markets today were ready to collapse in the recent past.
The answer to relocate is significantly expensive to continuously manage when teams are moved from one location to another. Independent studies have confirmed there were 5 markets in NA that could sustain an NHL team, one of those was Winnipeg. Even if the 4 bottom teams moved and became profitable there are still 10-12 teams that are not making money. That leads to contractionion.
Sports leagues without enough teams are weak and eventually lose favour. See the CFL. Based on the past 10 years there would be 12-16 active NHL teams if looking only at profitable teams. Not only that, if the league contracts the NHLPA loses membership and the league loses revenue overall. That means less money for the players who are left.
If the league contracts(too much), the owners will receive the lion shares of the profits which is the exact opposite of what is happening today.
There is a sweet spot in the middle. Yeah, that's it, the middle. Doesn't that sound like 50/50 to you?? I agree there is likely a need to chop the bottom 4 teams from the NHL. But I still can't seem to get past the simple logic that a 57/43 deal can not sustain a league long term.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2012 : 11:10:19
|
Well apparently all my comments regarding my agreement to at least a 50/50 split if not more in favor of the owners, was missed completely. Nowhere did I, 'pull that crap', about the players giving up everything.
My posts have only to been to reiterate my thoughts that the NHL as a business is too busy undermining itself to correct it's own flaws. You are aggrandizing much of what I have been saying.
I took the stance that the players, while being responsible to the fiscal health of the league, are being thought of as equally to blame for the current situation the league is in, and I disagree,that is all.
In my opinion only, they are not. They are employees. They are only able to make what an employer pays them. They are not 30 year employees and as such need to make their security while they can. If they are able to make X amount to ensure they have financial security, albeit nothing we can relate to from a dollars and cents perspective, that is what they are entitled to do.
I will again reiterate, the owners control what is paid from an individual perspective, with those cap considerations you mentioned, that are controlled by overall revenues. The fact that overall revenues increased, causing the cap floor to raise and cause grief to non profitable teams, only exacerbates the issues of a league that is not being run with sound business modeling.
The owners and the league have all the control to limit that amount. They have some teams making huge profits as you pointed out, while the majority are not. How does this happen at a corporate level, without poor management from a league perspective?
There are many, many options the NHL can use to bolster the financially weaker teams, Phoenix being the prime example, yet they make the player salary and revenue sharing the focus of all their troubles? While at the same time continuing to shoot themselves in the feet?
I don't think the league needs to contract down to CFL levels and I never said that anywhere. I think the owners need to start being responsible to the health of the league as a whole if they want to continue to 'grow' it's presence as seems to be their intent.
Where would be the problem with moving a select few of the poorer teams to markets with much better revenue streams, increasing overall revenues with overall sharing of all teams profitability, to ensure overall league healthiness? If the owners are collectively that concerned about the league's overall financial health, would that not be a reasonable solution?
That of course would require collective responsibility and thinking from an owners perspective and as we have seen, it is politically incorrect to assume any of the owners are greedy.
I will say it again, I agree the players need to make concessions to the revenue split and it was free money that they have been getting to this point, due to owners willingness to sign off on it.
I would be more than happy to see a favorable revenue split in the owner's favor, as long as the existing player contract are honored as they should be, and I would also love to see some sort of profit sharing amongst teams as a whole, if there directives are to keep these financially teams operating in their respective cities.
Then again, I think I'd have to live in a world of unicorns and leprechauns, if I want too see that happen.
 |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2012 : 11:35:56
|
And to answer one of your queried with one of my own.
How much do you think revenues would grow overall if for example, Phoenix was moved to Quebec or Hamilton. Maybe add Columbus to a move to either one of those mentioned?
That increase in overall revenue, and some design of overall profit sharing amongst teams, would at the very least ensure no one is losing money, and I would wager it would make very little of a dent in the top 3 or 4 teams profits if doled out collectively.
That sounds like too easy of a solution to keep the league as is number of teams wise, and I would be shocked to see the NHLPA have any issues with it...win win.
Except for the uber rich teams of course, why share with the poor. 
According to a quick google search, last year 18 teams had a negative figure of revenue vs operating costs. There was collectively 126.1 million in losses approx. with 24.4 of that being Phoenix(ridiculous, but another discusssion).
There were 12 teams showing positive revenue vs operating costs.
Collectively, 252.3 million approx.
Maybe I'm simple, but that shows me, there is double the profit to losses league wide. Columbus and Phoenix would swing that almost 40 million alone if moved to anything remotely considered a 'break even' market.
Perhaps the league needs to consider it's internal model to fix the flaws. Like most other corporations, the negative components are either supplemented by the positive or phased out. If the NHL is serious about continuing to push the game in to new markets, that would be an easy fix, no?
And PS. sorry Beans, had I taken the time to reread 9 pages of postings, I would have seen that you posted those same numbers in an earlier thread. And in detail, thanks! |
Edited by - fat_elvis_rocked on 11/08/2012 12:23:43 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2012 : 14:14:39
|
Thank the Lord!! At least this argument is turning factual and evidence based compared the the gibberish and rherotic it was before!!
Now, to your point FER I agree with contraction/relocation to a reasonable level. If I were king for a day than I would contract the league to 24 teams including a relocation that would include a team in QC and one in either KC or Seattle.
But the point is moot as it does not change the structure. Your assumption of overall revenue increasing for a team that relocates is not accuate for what we know today. They only example we can look to is ATL moving to Winnipeg. ATL had revenues of $68 million and an operating loss of $1.8 million their last year. The new Winnipeg team has just $3 million more in revenues and an lost $5.7 million.
Doesn't look favourable for relocating franchises hey?? Now, I know it is a snapshot of one year and the first year of opertions for Winnipeg. But is does tell a story to all the average Joe fans who were crying for a team in Winnipeg and making all the bold statements about how much better a team would in Canada compared to a warm US climate.
I would like to quote two statements made by Forbes. They release their franshise valuations reports each year. Here are statements from their 2010 and 2011 reports. It paints an interesting picture that is purely factual and statistical.
I appreciate this is a bit of a long read but I encourage everyone to read it. The full stories can be found using google.
2010
There is parity on the ice in hockey. Since a lockout canceled the National Hockey League's 2004-'05 season and ushered in the salary cap era, a different team has won the Stanley Cup every year. Two big-market teams (Anaheim Ducks, Chicago Blackhawks), one mid-market team (Detroit Red Wings) and two small-market teams (Carolina Hurricanes, Pittsburgh Penguins) have won the championship. You can root for hockey almost anywhere in the U.S. and Canada and have a shot at seeing a local team capture the Cup.
But when it comes to the P&L statement, the NHL has become a two-tiered league. During the 2009-'10 season the 30 teams combined to generate $160 million of operating income (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) on revenue (net of proceeds required for arena debt) of $2.9 billion. But seven teams (the Toronto Maple Leafs, New York Rangers, Montreal Canadiens, Red Wings, Philadelphia Flyers, Black Hawks and Vancouver Canucks) combined to earn $241 million, with none making less than $13 million. Meanwhile, 16 teams were in the red, with the six biggest money-losers (Phoenix Coyotes, Florida Panthers, Washington Capitals, Atlanta Thrashers, Buffalo Sabres and Tampa Bay Lightning) dropping an aggregate of $63 million.
The big disparity in profit can almost always be explained by local television rights and arena economics. The Maple Leafs, Canadiens and Rangers each generate more than $25 million a year from their cable rights fees and more than $40 million from premium seating (luxury suites and club seats). In contrast, the Coyotes, Lightning and Thrashers each pull in less than $10 million from local television and under $15 million from premium seating.
2011
More business is boosting National Hockey League team values but climbing player costs are eroding the sport’s profitability.
The average hockey team is now worth $240 million, 5% more than last year due to a 5% increase in revenue during the 2010-11 season, to an average of $103 million per team. The sport’s popularity on television (NBC’s broadcast of the Bridgestone NHL Winter Classic was the most-viewed NHL regular season game in 36 years, with an average of 4.5 million watching during prime time) and online (average monthly unique visitors to NHL.com plus all 30 NHL team Web sites has increased to a record 22 million) is up, as is the revenue from those platforms.
Sponsorship and merchandise sales have also been increasing thanks to new deals, like the one with Tim Hortons that gives the quick-service donut chain title sponsorship of the 2012 NHL All-Star Game in January, and the extremely well done reality series 24/7 Penguins/Capitals: Road to the NHL on HBO that was a big hit. And the NHL recently extended its European reach with separate regional broadcast deals for U.K./Ireland, Czech Republic, Germany and Austria, among other new territories.
But margins are getting squeezed. During the 2010-11 season the league posted operating income (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) of $126 million, 21% lower than the previous year. Main reason: Player costs increased 11%, to $59 million. Last season 18 of the league’s 30 teams lost money even before they had to pay bank loans or write down assets, compared with 16 the prior year.
The league’s salary cap, set at 57% of revenue, is too high for some teams to be profitable . As a result, expect the National Hockey League to undergo a cantankerous labor negotiations when the owners and players union begin to hammer our a new collective bargaining agreement to replace the current six-year deal that expires in September . The NHL must move much closer to the 48% model the NFL agreed to before this season or the 50-50 revenue split National Basketball Association’s owners and players recently agreed to.
Three years ago NHL commissioner Gary Bettman told me not a single NHL team was worth less than $200 million. But money-losing teams are being sold for much less. In February Forbes 400 member Terrence Pegula bought the Buffalo Sabres, who lost $5.6 million last season, for $165 million. The St. Louis Blues and Carolina Hurricanes, two other teams losing money, are being shopped at prices well below $200 million. And the New Jersey Devils, who sank 17% in value to $181 million, are in such bad shape financially that there is speculation the team could be headed for bankruptcy and a court supervised sale like the Dallas Stars.
Yet a handful of teams, most of which play in big markets, are making piles of money. The league’s most valuable team, the Toronto Maple Leafs, is now worth $521 million and generated $81.8 million in operating income last season. The New York Rangers, who are enjoying the benefits of playing in a refurbished Madison Square Garden, earned $41.4 million last year and are the NHL’s second-most valuable team, worth $507 million. And the Montreal Canadiens, placing third with a $445 million valuation, earned $47.7 million. Thus the top three teams posted an aggregate operating profit greater than the rest of the league combined.
Having all that cash gives teams an advantage when it comes to keeping talent, despite the salary cap, because teams can reduce their payroll for salary cap purposes by sending players to the minors or Europe, play games with the league’s long-term injury reserve system and front-load contracts to manipulate the yearly cap hit (team payrolls are based on the average annual values of the contracts).
This helps explain the big gap in team payrolls within the league. The New York Rangers, Vancouver Canucks and Chicago Blackhawks each had more than $70 million in player expenses, versus less than $50 million for the Carolina Hurricanes, New York Islanders and St. Louis Blues.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
Edited by - Beans15 on 11/08/2012 14:15:25 |
|
|
|
fat_elvis_rocked
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
902 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2012 : 14:46:20
|
And that in a nutshell, is where I agree wholeheartedly, if the revenue is dropped to something like 45/55 in favor of the owners, and existing contracts are honored, then the picture can begin to change favorably.
I would also like to see some verbage in the CBA curtailing owners' ability to circumvent the CBA and 'cowboy' their contract offers, which would also help the overall picture of player value drastically. Devalue one and all to something reasonable over the next sets of signings.
My only contention has been the heavy handedness of the NHL with repeated lockouts after signing off on agreements that, although weren't exactly what they wanted, were still agreements negotiated with their approvals.
I do find it sad that there is that kind of financial disparity in the teams and their revenues, In the most extreme example between TO and PHO, what? 200 million!!! Crazy!
I would hope the NHL as a business would look at some way to share that profit amongst it's business., because as you say, a league that is forced to contract too far, is no longer a league.
It will be interesting to see where a team like Winipeg does financially over a time period, provided those revenues get split properly, and hopefully once signed the next CBA improves things and we can get back to more watching and less typing!
And PS, I try not to gibber or rhetor, so I hope that wasn't me you were referring to! |
|
|
|
The_Gipper
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
285 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2012 : 15:18:23
|
i wish Beans and FER were conducting the negotiations.....they would have had the CBA signed in no time!
|
|
|
|
Guest0657
( )
|
Posted - 11/08/2012 : 17:18:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
The NHL owner HAS to pay at least $54 million in salary. They don't have a choice in that matter. They may not want to, but they have to. The are contractually obligated to do that.
How is the owner at fault for having to pay to a salary floor???
Because they asked for it and locked the players out the last time just so they can have the honour of cost certainty.
Any time that the owners have an issue with the cost certainty, they point that they have to pay this amount. They do only because they asked for it. Get rid of any minimum or maximum amount and the owner can make what ever they want.
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Moral of the story - The CBA is an agreement between both the OWNERS and the PLAYERS. The owners are following the agreement, so how are they the only one's to blame??
A+B=C. If the agreement is between the owners (a) and the players (b) then how can they not both be responsible for the problems and the solutions???
See argument above. The owners demanded it and locked the players out just to get to this cost certainty. The owners don't know how to control their costs so they asked the players for cost certainty as a mechanism to help them control themselves. Shoddy management don't you think that the owner can't control their costs all on their own? Hey Sid, I'm paying you $4M/yr. Take it or leave it. Don't like it, see you in the KHL.
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
If the league contracts(too much), the owners will receive the lion shares of the profits which is the exact opposite of what is happening today.
That can't happen under the current arrangement of the CBA. The players are guaranteed 57% of revenue. Anytime the owners want to remove the revenue sharing cost certainty, they are more than able to make a whack load of profit. Oh right, they won't because they don't know how deal with money. |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2012 : 18:56:23
|
I agree some of my fix proposals of delinking from average HRR were pipedreams, but I don't see why you have a problem with most of my arguements against your positions. In most of my prior posts I agreed with and said a 50/50 split was good for the sport. I suggested relocation was the best fix for struggling franchises. My problem is with the owners having tried to negotiate a contract individually with a player then ask collectively for a rollback. Then to force the players to there terms, they institute a lockout before they actually put a reasonable proposal in front of them.
It seems now that the players are willing to lose income to receive reasonable terms, if you can believe reports, that the owners are willing to work within the escrow system from the last CBA, there next proposal should include the make whole clause to include the above 50/50 contract value on signed contracts at 57%. Should the league make within profit targets the 7% would be returned to the PA. Should the league fall below profit targets the 7% escrow amount would be dispersed to the teams. Neither option would count against the cap. That is the biggest reason we didn't get 82 games season and a Winter Classic.
I have heard the last stumbling blocks of a signed proposal at this point is arbitration rights, term length of contracts and appreciating salary restrictions the League has proposed. The players are fighting hard for all the arbitration rights from the last CBA and dont want restrictions on contracts of 5 years, as they are locked up to 10 years for free agency. The league wants no more than 5% increase year to year on individual player salary. The players feel 5% is restrictive. I haven't heard whether dropping a overpaid player's contract in the minor league has been figured yet, but I wouldn't assume neither party would object to that.
With relocation a real possibility for 2 or 3 bottom earners, the league negotiating future contracts based on the 50/50 split, should turn around most of teams just below profit thresholds and the other teams currently making profit more profitable. I think the value of most franchises should increase, if this is signed soon enough to save a season. Currently the league is looking to a shortened 60 game season format, without East and West meeting during the season.
In one other point made, if the league contracted by 2 teams versus relocation, I think in the long run it would strengthen the league. The PA might oppose it, but I don't think they could prevent it post CBA signing. I also would like to see the issues of conference realignment to 4 Divisions handled during this CBA, so next years schedule, should we have hockey, have a more balanced travel schedule, have every team have 1 game against per year and increased interdivision rivalries. With 28 teams it would make it easier to have balanced 7 team divisions. Conversely should the NHL choose to expand by 2 teams, say Quebec and Markham, which I object to and believe would only dilute the player pool, would also fix the unbalanced division objection the PA had, by having 8 teams per division. |
Edited by - JOSHUACANADA on 11/08/2012 19:04:28 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2012 : 19:40:05
|
First off Guest, I am not going down the road of trying to explain why your suggesting not only won't work but it's a bad idea. Re-read the 9 pages of posts to see countless examples from various people disputing it.
Secondly, to FER - This disagreeing with the lockout thing doesn't make sense to me. The owners have only locked the players out when their deals expired. They have honored the length of every agreement they have every signed.
To Josua, help me understand how that escrow program is any different than program in the last CBA?? It has always been set up that the players escrow goes to the owners if the revenues are below project and to the players if they are at or above projections. I don't understand why that is a sticking point when the program has been in place for 7 years.
Finally, let's look at this issue of the owners fault for negotiations this summer. Again, there were not many owners, maybe a handful, that had their GM's signing dumb contracts. You can't paint them all with the same brush. But here is another piece of information for you:
There are only around 50 players in the NHL making elite money. For the players above $6 million/season, they account for $390 million or about 20% of the total NHL payroll. I really don't have a problem with the best players making the most money. I don't like the back diving/multiyear deals but let's face it, you go to the rink to see Sedin brother not Malhotra.
The current average NHL contract is $2.4 million/season. If you remove all of the player making more than $6 million that average only drops to $2.3 million. There are issues with the owners who signed Parise, Suter, Weber, etc. However, that is not the main issue with the system. The bottom line is 57% of the pool is simply too big for the number of players involved and does not allow profitability.
At least we can almost all agree on the 50/50. At the end of the day, I really don't care how they get there.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2012 : 08:03:14
|
Where in my last post did you read that the escrow from the last CBA was any different than the current one being bandied about. Second off, the difference now is future escrow will not count agains future HRR revenue split, which was in the last owner proposal, effectively making the players split less than the 50/50 we both agree is an equitable split and the real reason we didnt get a 82 game season/winter classic. That is the destinction. In defense of FER, how many teams signed players over the summer, since the draft to contracts longer than 5 years or to contracts higher than 4 million per year. There was a lot more than 1 or 2. I think most teams out there made a pitch or 2 for the Elite free agents who signed astronomical contract values. I may not have heard of a few teams out there making these contract offers, but the majority of the teams were in play not just 1 or 2.
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
First off Guest, I am not going down the road of trying to explain why your suggesting not only won't work but it's a bad idea. Re-read the 9 pages of posts to see countless examples from various people disputing it.
Secondly, to FER - This disagreeing with the lockout thing doesn't make sense to me. The owners have only locked the players out when their deals expired. They have honored the length of every agreement they have every signed.
To Josua, help me understand how that escrow program is any different than program in the last CBA?? It has always been set up that the players escrow goes to the owners if the revenues are below project and to the players if they are at or above projections. I don't understand why that is a sticking point when the program has been in place for 7 years.
Finally, let's look at this issue of the owners fault for negotiations this summer. Again, there were not many owners, maybe a handful, that had their GM's signing dumb contracts. You can't paint them all with the same brush. But here is another piece of information for you:
There are only around 50 players in the NHL making elite money. For the players above $6 million/season, they account for $390 million or about 20% of the total NHL payroll. I really don't have a problem with the best players making the most money. I don't like the back diving/multiyear deals but let's face it, you go to the rink to see Sedin brother not Malhotra.
The current average NHL contract is $2.4 million/season. If you remove all of the player making more than $6 million that average only drops to $2.3 million. There are issues with the owners who signed Parise, Suter, Weber, etc. However, that is not the main issue with the system. The bottom line is 57% of the pool is simply too big for the number of players involved and does not allow profitability.
At least we can almost all agree on the 50/50. At the end of the day, I really don't care how they get there.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2012 : 08:35:05
|
I was not aware of that difference in the escrow. That is why I asked the question. Thanks for clarifying.
Now, I can clarify something for you.
FA signed in 2012 for more than $4 million? 12
Parise, Suter, Semin, Carle, Doan, Wideman, Garrison, Jagr, Selanne, Jokinen, Brodeur, and Whitney.
Of those, 2 were 1 year deals and 3 more were 2 year deals. I would state that other than Parise, Suter, and maybe Wideman all of those other deals would have been similar under a new agreement.
FA signed in 2012 for more than 5 years? 4
Parise, Suter, Carle, and Garrison.
So really, all this garbage talk about all the horrible deals during the summer comes down to Minnesota. Let's throw in the RFA offer sheet attempt on Weber and include Philly into the teams making deals for players. That is two teams.
Let's reach even a little bit further and say that Carolina's signing of Skinner, Edmonton signing Hall and Eberle, and Boston signing Seguin could fit the mold you are talking about. I don't think they really do as they are not significantly higher or longer term than other great young players like Tavares, Toews, Kane, et al.
Even if we said all those deals were 'bad faith' deals, that is 5 teams. 5 out of 30 sounds like a handful doesn't it??
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
Guest4350
( )
|
Posted - 11/09/2012 : 08:53:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
First off Guest, I am not going down the road of trying to explain why your suggesting not only won't work but it's a bad idea. Re-read the 9 pages of posts to see countless examples from various people disputing it.
I think everyone understands that removing cost certainty is a pipe dream like Josh said. But the argument that the owners are forced to pay the players a minimum amount and that the amount is too much because too many teams are losing money is bogus. The owner are forced to pay a minimum because they need to have that enforcement or else they lose even more money. In essence the fact that the owners are forced to pay the average salary of $2.4M is the reason the any owner makes any profit at all. That's the point that pro-owner posters fail to acknowledge and that is the point Josh and the guests were making. So instead of saying because the players are being paid 57% of HRR is why 18 teams are losing money, the other way to see it is because of the 57% of HRR to salary is why there are 12 teams making money and the reason why the NHL in its entirety is in the positive.
Hey 50/50 split of the pie seems fair to everyone. Just depends on the way the pie is being defined so the split of revenue is truly 50/50.
Now if the split is 50/50 and only 14 teams are in the positive and the NHL as a whole is in the positive, is that good enough for the NHL or will they still whine about it? |
|
|
|
Guest4350
( )
|
Posted - 11/09/2012 : 08:55:59
|
| Lucic - $6M |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2012 : 13:14:35
|
Ok lets clarify again. These are 16 or so players on your list who were rushed signed to long term or high value contracts based on the benifits for the team of the old CBA. Of those 12 were free agents signed at current market value in which many teams were vieing for the rights to. We are not talking about 2 or 3 teams here. Between the teams I know offended - Rangers, Pittsburg, Edmonton, Pheonix, Toronto, Boston, Minni, Philly and Nashville who matched, there were twice as many teams with offer sheets similar on the table. Not to mention one of the offenders was a league run team who signed Doan to an expensive offer sheet, and then claimed they cant figure out why they cant make money in the desert. This was hypocrytical to say the least, as he was one of the last to sign to a league run team, then the league claims poor and tries to rollback his wage the next week.
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I was not aware of that difference in the escrow. That is why I asked the question. Thanks for clarifying.
Now, I can clarify something for you.
FA signed in 2012 for more than $4 million? 12
Parise, Suter, Semin, Carle, Doan, Wideman, Garrison, Jagr, Selanne, Jokinen, Brodeur, and Whitney.
Of those, 2 were 1 year deals and 3 more were 2 year deals. I would state that other than Parise, Suter, and maybe Wideman all of those other deals would have been similar under a new agreement.
FA signed in 2012 for more than 5 years? 4
Parise, Suter, Carle, and Garrison.
So really, all this garbage talk about all the horrible deals during the summer comes down to Minnesota. Let's throw in the RFA offer sheet attempt on Weber and include Philly into the teams making deals for players. That is two teams.
Let's reach even a little bit further and say that Carolina's signing of Skinner, Edmonton signing Hall and Eberle, and Boston signing Seguin could fit the mold you are talking about. I don't think they really do as they are not significantly higher or longer term than other great young players like Tavares, Toews, Kane, et al.
Even if we said all those deals were 'bad faith' deals, that is 5 teams. 5 out of 30 sounds like a handful doesn't it??
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2012 : 13:41:39
|
NY signed who??
TO signed who??
Pitt signed who??
Edmonton signed their 2 cornerstone players to deals similar to those signed by Kane and Toews 2 seasons ago. Carolina and Boston did the same.
Minny was crazy, no doubt about it.
And how it the heck do you have any idea of what some teams may or may not have for offers on the table?? Are you some kind of NHL insider now??
Shane Doan has bigger offers from other teams!! (PS, you do realize that PHO would have had to still meet the cap floor so paying Doan or paying another player was going to happen)
C'mon dude, this is rediculous. The facts are all available. Other than the Suter, Parise, and Weber deals there was nothing completely out of the norm for signing this off season. Some were slightly high but certainly not 24% high.
Can we try to talk about facts rather that the pipe dreams of what you think is happening??? Please.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2012 : 08:06:32
|
NY was in the running for Doan with one of the higher offers on the table. TO was in the running for every free agent with a heart beat and a high paycheck. Pitts, like every free agent season, was as well. I am not convinced Pheonix had to sign Doan to make the floor when in all honesty right now there isn't a floor and Doan was content to sit out the time it took to negotiate the CBA with no other teams being able to make offers during negotiations. For a team with the lowest revenue why do they need to sign Doan at all. My point about Edmonton wasn't that they shouldn't have signed those cornerstone players, but that they rushed to do so prior to renegotiating the CBA because of the advantage of locking them up longer termed and potentially reaping the benifits of the rollback. If the terms of the last CBA were so bad why rush at all to sign these players to high earning contracts or longer termed contracts knowing once the lockout happens, all negotiating stops for free agents. I say not every team is drinking the cooler water Bettman is selling. Post this next CBA the future signings will prove that and if these teams who rushed to sign these players dont reap the benifits of a rollback they will be in poor situations once the reduced HRR is applied to current roster contracts.quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
NY signed who??
TO signed who??
Pitt signed who??
Edmonton signed their 2 cornerstone players to deals similar to those signed by Kane and Toews 2 seasons ago. Carolina and Boston did the same.
Minny was crazy, no doubt about it.
And how it the heck do you have any idea of what some teams may or may not have for offers on the table?? Are you some kind of NHL insider now??
Shane Doan has bigger offers from other teams!! (PS, you do realize that PHO would have had to still meet the cap floor so paying Doan or paying another player was going to happen)
C'mon dude, this is rediculous. The facts are all available. Other than the Suter, Parise, and Weber deals there was nothing completely out of the norm for signing this off season. Some were slightly high but certainly not 24% high.
Can we try to talk about facts rather that the pipe dreams of what you think is happening??? Please.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Guest0657
( )
|
Posted - 11/10/2012 : 10:54:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
[blue]2010
But when it comes to the P&L statement, the NHL has become a two-tiered league. During the 2009-'10 season the 30 teams combined to generate $160 million of operating income (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) on revenue (net of proceeds required for arena debt) of $2.9 billion.
[teal]2011
More business is boosting National Hockey League team values but climbing player costs are eroding the sport’s profitability.
But margins are getting squeezed. During the 2010-11 season the league posted operating income (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) of $126 million, 21% lower than the previous year. Main reason: Player costs increased 11%, to $59 million. Last season 18 of the league’s 30 teams lost money even before they had to pay bank loans or write down assets, compared with 16 the prior year.
I find these excerpts most interesting. In 2010 revenue is 2.9B. In 2011 revenue was 3.3B. So increase revenue is about 13.8% (0.4/2.9).
But player cost increased by 11% which less than the revenue increase. So how is it that profitability decrease is less because of players salary when salary went up less than revenue? I'm confused.
Remember because of cost certainty players salary was supposed to be increased by 13.8% like that or revenue. But players salary increased less than revenue increase yet it is because player's salary that the income decreased. Something doesn't add up here. Am I confused? |
|
|
|
JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2308 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2012 : 12:17:40
|
Btw, the only statement I can partially agreed with is your tag line at the end about Alfredson. I love that CBA negotiating has cause my bet win with you to last this long.quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
NY signed who??
TO signed who??
Pitt signed who??
Edmonton signed their 2 cornerstone players to deals similar to those signed by Kane and Toews 2 seasons ago. Carolina and Boston did the same.
Minny was crazy, no doubt about it.
And how it the heck do you have any idea of what some teams may or may not have for offers on the table?? Are you some kind of NHL insider now??
Shane Doan has bigger offers from other teams!! (PS, you do realize that PHO would have had to still meet the cap floor so paying Doan or paying another player was going to happen)
C'mon dude, this is rediculous. The facts are all available. Other than the Suter, Parise, and Weber deals there was nothing completely out of the norm for signing this off season. Some were slightly high but certainly not 24% high.
Can we try to talk about facts rather that the pipe dreams of what you think is happening??? Please.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Guest8136
( )
|
Posted - 11/10/2012 : 13:16:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest0657
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
[blue]2010
But when it comes to the P&L statement, the NHL has become a two-tiered league. During the 2009-'10 season the 30 teams combined to generate $160 million of operating income (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) on revenue (net of proceeds required for arena debt) of $2.9 billion.
[teal]2011
More business is boosting National Hockey League team values but climbing player costs are eroding the sport’s profitability.
But margins are getting squeezed. During the 2010-11 season the league posted operating income (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) of $126 million, 21% lower than the previous year. Main reason: Player costs increased 11%, to $59 million. Last season 18 of the league’s 30 teams lost money even before they had to pay bank loans or write down assets, compared with 16 the prior year.
I find these excerpts most interesting. In 2010 revenue is 2.9B. In 2011 revenue was 3.3B. So increase revenue is about 13.8% (0.4/2.9).
But player cost increased by 11% which less than the revenue increase. So how is it that profitability decrease is less because of players salary when salary went up less than revenue? I'm confused.
Remember because of cost certainty players salary was supposed to be increased by 13.8% like that or revenue. But players salary increased less than revenue increase yet it is because player's salary that the income decreased. Something doesn't add up here. Am I confused?
Nothing confusing about it. This article is talking about 09-10 to 10-11. Your $3.3 billion revenue number is from 11-12.
You are adding in revenues from one year and salaries from other year. Honest mistake I am sure.
|
|
|
|
Guest0657
( )
|
Posted - 11/10/2012 : 16:01:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest8136
Nothing confusing about it. This article is talking about 09-10 to 10-11. Your $3.3 billion revenue number is from 11-12.
You are adding in revenues from one year and salaries from other year. Honest mistake I am sure.
Thanks that explains it but sort of. Searching google shows:
2009-2010 revenue $2.7B.
2010-2011 revenue $2.9B.
Year to year increase 7.4%. How can salary increase be 11% if the cost certainty locks the salary increase to revenue and so only a 7.4% salary increase is possible? |
|
|
|
Guest0657
( )
|
Posted - 11/10/2012 : 16:09:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4350
I think everyone understands that removing cost certainty is a pipe dream like Josh said. But the argument that the owners are forced to pay the players a minimum amount and that the amount is too much because too many teams are losing money is bogus. The owner are forced to pay a minimum because they need to have that enforcement or else they lose even more money. In essence the fact that the owners are forced to pay the average salary of $2.4M is the reason the any owner makes any profit at all. That's the point that pro-owner posters fail to acknowledge and that is the point Josh and the guests were making. So instead of saying because the players are being paid 57% of HRR is why 18 teams are losing money, the other way to see it is because of the 57% of HRR to salary is why there are 12 teams making money and the reason why the NHL in its entirety is in the positive.
So in searching the NHL income I ran across this from the Globe and Mail. The bolding is my work.
--
“Under the current CBA, NHL teams have received over $3-billion in revenue that would have previously gone towards player salaries,” one such source said this week. “The issue is not whether the players should now give up more revenue, it’s what did the owners do with this $3-billion?
“We know what they didn’t do. NHL clubs did not meaningfully revenue share between the big and small markets. After accepting a salary cap, a 24 per cent rollback and making other significant concessions last time, with revenues up over 50 per cent since 2005, why look to the players again?”
The answer is easy: Bettman and Co. believe they will have far more luck prying $200- or $300-million out of the players than the big moneyed teams, the owners of which feel they’ve given up enough of their advantage by agreeing to a cap, some limited revenue sharing and greater parity.[\b]
But even under the league’s recent proposal, which would cut the players’ share to 46 per cent, many teams on the low end would continue to lose money.
You simply can’t turn a profit while bringing in $80-million or less unless we’re talking about a cap of $45-million or less, which at current revenue levels would require giving players only a 37 per cent share.
To make a team like Phoenix profitable, they’d have to take closer to 25 per cent.
Neither of those will come to pass.
In a lot of ways, this CBA negotiation is still tied directly to the NHL’s path down the overexpansion road in the 1990s, one it hasn’t fully recovered from. Yes, revenues are way, way up, but they are up in large part due to its biggest hockey markets (including Canadian teams).
Those that have struggled in the past for the most part continue to do so.
The frustration on the players’ side is that in many instances this is more a revenue problem than a player salary problem – and they have little say in how to correct the vast revenue imbalance in the league.
Relocation is one option – going from Atlanta to Winnipeg alone had to have boosted league revenues $30-million or more – but there really aren’t many places to go beyond perhaps franchises in Toronto, Quebec City and Seattle.
Another is to drop the salary floor and allow teams to simply spend what they can afford, giving up on forced parity when it means forced losses for those on the low end.
More robust revenue sharing could also certainly help – and I expect that’s what union leader Donald Fehr eventually pushes for – but how willing are the Leafs, Habs, Rangers et al to bail out the league’s perennial problem children?
“Not very” has always been the word, and that’s why they currently share only a tiny fraction (rumoured to be roughly 7 per cent) of their share of revenues.
But pushing the players to fix this can only take them so far here. For the rest of the solution, this is a league that needs to look in the mirror at what’s really happening and why some of its teams are losing this much money.
Or give up the ruse that that’s what they’re fighting to correct in the first place.
“I know other leagues have meaningful revenue sharing,” one agent said this week of the NHL’s revenue gap dilemma. “The NHL hopes that the media and fans ignore that fact. Owners would rather try to pound on players than pound on each other.”[b] |
|
|
|
Guest0657
( )
|
Posted - 11/10/2012 : 16:16:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4350
I think everyone understands that removing cost certainty is a pipe dream like Josh said. But the argument that the owners are forced to pay the players a minimum amount and that the amount is too much because too many teams are losing money is bogus. The owner are forced to pay a minimum because they need to have that enforcement or else they lose even more money. In essence the fact that the owners are forced to pay the average salary of $2.4M is the reason the any owner makes any profit at all. That's the point that pro-owner posters fail to acknowledge and that is the point Josh and the guests were making. So instead of saying because the players are being paid 57% of HRR is why 18 teams are losing money, the other way to see it is because of the 57% of HRR to salary is why there are 12 teams making money and the reason why the NHL in its entirety is in the positive.
So in searching the NHL income I ran across this from the Globe and Mail. The bolding is my work. Sorry for the double post, admin if you want to delete the first one, that is cool, I pressed post instead of preview.
--
“Under the current CBA, NHL teams have received over $3-billion in revenue that would have previously gone towards player salaries,” one such source said this week. “The issue is not whether the players should now give up more revenue, it’s what did the owners do with this $3-billion?
“We know what they didn’t do. NHL clubs did not meaningfully revenue share between the big and small markets. After accepting a salary cap, a 24 per cent rollback and making other significant concessions last time, with revenues up over 50 per cent since 2005, why look to the players again?”
The answer is easy: Bettman and Co. believe they will have far more luck prying $200- or $300-million out of the players than the big moneyed teams, the owners of which feel they’ve given up enough of their advantage by agreeing to a cap, some limited revenue sharing and greater parity.
But even under the league’s recent proposal, which would cut the players’ share to 46 per cent, many teams on the low end would continue to lose money.
You simply can’t turn a profit while bringing in $80-million or less unless we’re talking about a cap of $45-million or less, which at current revenue levels would require giving players only a 37 per cent share.
To make a team like Phoenix profitable, they’d have to take closer to 25 per cent.
Neither of those will come to pass.
The frustration on the players’ side is that in many instances this is more a revenue problem than a player salary problem – and they have little say in how to correct the vast revenue imbalance in the league.
Relocation is one option – going from Atlanta to Winnipeg alone had to have boosted league revenues $30-million or more – but there really aren’t many places to go beyond perhaps franchises in Toronto, Quebec City and Seattle.
Another is to drop the salary floor and allow teams to simply spend what they can afford, giving up on forced parity when it means forced losses for those on the low end.
More robust revenue sharing could also certainly help – and I expect that’s what union leader Donald Fehr eventually pushes for – but how willing are the Leafs, Habs, Rangers et al to bail out the league’s perennial problem children?
“Not very” has always been the word, and that’s why they currently share only a tiny fraction (rumoured to be roughly 7 per cent) of their share of revenues.
But pushing the players to fix this can only take them so far here. For the rest of the solution, this is a league that needs to look in the mirror at what’s really happening and why some of its teams are losing this much money.
Or give up the ruse that that’s what they’re fighting to correct in the first place.
“I know other leagues have meaningful revenue sharing,” one agent said this week of the NHL’s revenue gap dilemma. “The NHL hopes that the media and fans ignore that fact. Owners would rather try to pound on players than pound on each other.”
[/quote] |
|
|
|
Guest8136
( )
|
Posted - 11/10/2012 : 16:34:29
|
If you do the research using Forbes information, revenues went up by only $3 million in Winnipeg. Profits also dropped by $4 million for that franchise alone.
What's the next idea? |
|
|
|
Trognitz
Top Prospect
10 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2012 : 19:04:41
|
save the money by paying Buttman what he deserves. minimum wage. and he's overpaid at that  |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
2012 CBA News and Comments 
