toby91_ca

Gold Booster
  • Content Count

    4,652
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by toby91_ca

  1. toby91_ca

    [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

    Meeting didn't start until 3:45pm ET
  2. toby91_ca

    [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

    The fact of the matter is, there is no way such meetings could have happened months ago.....well....I suppose the meetings could have happened, but there is no chance either side is going to conceed anything when there are no pressure points. Now that games and money are being lost, pressure is mounting on both sides. Hopefully enough to get a deal done. In terms of the PR battle....it's really stupid, but it is also a "necessary" step in the process....from both sides' standpoints anyway. Both sides take PR very seriously and what we saw in the media previously was really just PR postering and a way of negotiating, trying to get leverage on the other side. That type of thing happens early on. A deal doesn't get done that way, it just builds from there. A deal gets done behind closed doors with nothing being reported....hopefully that is the stage we are getting into, but i's very delicate. You never know if something may cause a blow up and forcing them back to the PR battle phase.
  3. toby91_ca

    [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

    meeting wrapped up about 15 minutes ago (10:45), will meet again tomorrow.
  4. toby91_ca

    [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

    meeting still going.....
  5. toby91_ca

    Brunner VS. Rueger

    Honestly though, if this is what we point to in terms of hope for someone coming in with a bit of sandpaper....think we need to keep hoping
  6. toby91_ca

    [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

    They met until 1amET and will meet again early next week (presummably Monday). I think that meeting would probably be the larger group.
  7. toby91_ca

    [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

    For clarity, that tweet was 5 minutes ago (12:30ET)
  8. toby91_ca

    [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

    What I've been hearing from almost all sources is that they really don't want to hold the WC this year even if they reach a deal tomorrow. It is supposed to be celebrating everything good about the game. I think everyone is worried that it coudl be a disaster with backlash from the lockout, would be better to defer to next year when hopefully all is forgiven, fresh start, etc.
  9. toby91_ca

    [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

    Can only be a good sign....why would they be meeting into the wee hours of a Saturday night if they weren't trying to hammer out an actual deal or something very close to it?
  10. toby91_ca

    [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

    S Fehr and Daly to meet tomorrow at undisclosed location I don't see how that can be true ($5-6M on average per team that is). Last year the owners' share of revenues after paying the players was about $52M per team. I know it costs approximately $30M to run a team before player salaries, so I'm not sure where that other $15M or so goes.
  11. toby91_ca

    [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

    Okay, where to start? I will assume you simply don't understand the finances or what the profits actually mean when using to assume a return on investment....because that is what it appears when you make that comment. However, it could be completely possible that you are presenting the information in such a way to make it look like the owners aren't making much at all (not sure why you'd do that...but it's possible). 1) I'm not sure what the $240 million represents....if it was the approximate team value, fine....doesn't seem too far off. However, I don't think I can recall any owner who has recently paid that kind of money to acquire a franchise (other than the recent Maple Leafs transaction....but we can all agree that is in another category). So when you are talking about return on investment, consider increases in market values of the franchises themselves, not just profits earned each year. Didn't Ilitch pay about $8M for the Wings....pretty decent return on investment he's been able to generate I think. 2) If you are looking at profits only, you will never be able to understand whether the players get a fair share vs. the owners. EBITDA is probably a pretty good guage to use. In a lot of cases, if the net profit of a franchise is close to nil....the owner could be getting a pretty good return on their investment, it all depends on how everything is structured. So, let's start with your $5M profit per team. Then, we should gross it up for various items, but the 3 biggest being the following: 1) Taxes - assume taxes at about 30%....that will bring the $5M up to about $7M or so (remember, player salaries are pre-tax as well). 2) Interest or debt servicing costs - this is a real wild card. I would assume that the vast majority of franchises in the NHL are highly leveraged....they didn't simply take money out of their bank accounts and buy a franchise, they borrowed money. So, whatever interest they are incurring on that debt would decrase profits (amount of interest could be $10-20 million or more....based on $200M borrowing at a rate of 5-10%). It is very important to add this back because it is irrelevant from the players perspective. If an owner comes in with all their own money, they won't incurr that cost. 3) Depreciation (non-cash) - if a team owns the building, their profit will be less due to depreciation charges taken on the building....you'd need to add that back to get a true sense of the income being generated at the owners' investments. So....in summary, I have no idea what the true average return on investment might be, but I do know for sure it is well in excess of what you have illustrated. Based on these factors, it points to why splitting a revenue number is the most appropriate because everything below that is really a function of how the owner runs his business. I think the overall profits the NHL owners are generating are very good (this doesn't even consider their rising franchise values). Time and time again, I'll keep coming back to the problem being disparity of revenue generation amoung teams, not how much money the players are making.
  12. toby91_ca

    Can the NHL Please Cancel the Winter Classic?

    Based on what? That may be true, but the there is no correlation between the two. The Winter Classic may be cancelled simply because non-refundable deposits are coming due and the NHL is not going to want to make those payments if they aren't guaranteed of playing. There is plenty of time to still get a 60-70 game season in. As time goes by, the chances of games dwindles obviously.
  13. toby91_ca

    Can the NHL Please Cancel the Winter Classic?

    Are you saying you want it cancelled because you don't want it seen as being a bargaining chip? Makes no sense to me....I don't want to see it cancelled at all, because if it isn't, that means there is a chance to get games going this year. I think many people see that game as a big thing that no one wants to lose. Perhaps, but I don't think it's as big of a deal as many think it is. Maybe the exposure is what you don't want to lose, but in terms of revenue, I don't think it really generates that much for anyone to be too worried about. I see above a quoate of $15M. If that is true....consider that cancelling the pre-season games lost about $150M.
  14. toby91_ca

    Junior Hockey Players Forming Union.

    Yeah, the Derek Clarke thing is extremely bizzare.
  15. toby91_ca

    [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

    The idea noted in the article doesnt' get to 50/50 immediately. Basically, it's saying, let's start at 50/50 and the amounts greater than 50% will be paid as well, but we won't include that in the 50/50 split calc. The owners would never agree to that. I like the mechanism, but perhaps too complicated to track existing and new contracts. Apart from that, I think they'd have to tweak how the 13% gets topped up (i.e. make it contingent on revenue growth and take it down a bit). Whatever you do, you aren't going to be at 50% right away unless revenues grow by 15% in year one. Edit....the thing that really pisses me off is the fact that the owners proposal does nothing to fix their problem...all is does is grab some additional cash from the players to help now, but the systematic problem still exists. When revenues keep growing due to select teams and 50/50 splits end up costing other teams who's revenues are not growing at the same rate....what is the NHL going to do in the next CBA? Take the players down to 40%? All that is going to happen is that the league as a whole will make more and more money....all coming from the top teams, with the occasional correction for smaller teams by grabbing money from players. It really, really annoys me to no end. They either need to abandon their desire for parity and allow teams to spend less than a floor (easy to do and still get to 50/50 in the end) or have more revenue sharing.
  16. toby91_ca

    [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

    1) Paying out the existing contracts in full regardless of revenues and split doesn't make sense to me because that wouldn't be the case under the expired CBA anyway. Example, even if the split was 57/43 forever, existing contracts are never truly guaranteed. If 57% of revenues drop below total contracted salaries.....total contracted salaries do not get paid in full. 2) I think what you describe is a way to segregate existing contracts vs. newly signed contracts....which is fair enough, but the owners don't want to pay full existing contracts, so that doesn't satisfy their needs. 3) The cap number is meaningless. All the owners truly care about is the split (50/50). You can set the cap at $200 million per team and if every teams spends to the cap, a lot of escrow payments will go back to the owners to get down to 50/50. All the cap does is help keep teams competitive (i.e. you don't have one team paying way more than another team). If all teams pay down to the floor.....players would probably get additional payments beyond their contracted salaries to get up to the 50/50. I think the only real solution here is to cushion the immediate blow to the players (gradually get down to the 50/50, but not right off the bat). Maybe they take a bit more than 50% off the start, but the quicker the revenues grow (owner's control that fate the most), the quicker you get to 50/50. Honestly, I think the solution is so simple.
  17. toby91_ca

    [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

    Consider me a league financial expert.....what's your idea?
  18. toby91_ca

    [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

    Actually, the two year ELC in the NHL's proposal is by design, not too lower value of 2nd contracts, but to delay UFA. While it initially looks like a give back to the players (i.e. the players want to get out of ELC as quickly as possible as the ELCs cap their earnings), it really is a take from the players when you combine with other proposals from the owners. The owners want to push UFA back to 8 years from the current 7. They also want to cap contracts at 5 years. Therefore, if an ELC goes 2 years, then the max a player can get after that is 5 years....you are at 7 years, but still not a UFA. Forces players to go through 3 contracts at least before getting to UFA. Players are used to be getting big paydays much sooner than that.
  19. toby91_ca

    The Next Wings Captain is...?

    Credibility is not the issue as this isn't a rumour or anything, it's simply someone's opinion or thoughts about what the Wings' should consider. I don't know the guy, but he seems like a simple fan blogger.....which doesn't mean much really. I wouldn't discount his opinions because he's not a highly respected guys in the business like Bob McKenzie for example. I understand his thought process....the Wings' may look a little weak...maybe good enough to compete, but not close to being cup favourites. So, does the team try to get value in return from Datsyuk before his potential value diminishes (he's 34). The biggest problem with that is that it is simply not the Wings' style, they don't flip guys near the end of their careers to bring in new blood. I think this is very important and one of the main reasons why the Wings' have a good track record of attracting and retaining players (they are loyal, players will be loyal to them). Other than that, the next biggest problem with the idea is that you might agree the team isn't good enough now and Datsyuk isn't going to get better over the next few years, but will trading him bring in players that will make them good enough now (i.e. right away)? Likely not. The only way this works is if you are bringing in young players that will stick with the team for a long time and immediate dividends will not likely be seen. Even if you find that.....go back to the biggest reason why this wouldn't fly.
  20. toby91_ca

    [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

    Ignoring other aspects of the deal, I think this should be a fair framework: Year 1 - players get minimum 50% of HRR and max 55% (if full contracts are paid at 52%, they get no more than that). Year 2 - min 50%, max 54% Year 3 - min 50%, max 53% Year 4 - min 50%, max 52% Year 5 - min 50%, max 51% Year 6 - 50%....period Neither side will really like it too much, which probably means it would be a pretty fair deal.
  21. toby91_ca

    [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

    Lidstrom just retired, so not him, but people like Arnott and O'Donnell have no contracts I believe, so they might retire too. Others would incude Jagr and Brodeur off the top of my head for sure...perhaps others, but can't think of anyone. Roloson is old enough for sure, but he didn't play in the NHL until he was 28 I believe. It is comments like this from Daly that he has been making almost everytime someone talks to him that really annoy me. So, in other words "whether there will be hockey played is totally up to the players, all they need to do is accept our offer. Whether they play or not has nothing to do with the NHL."
  22. toby91_ca

    NHL Fan Lockout Pledge

    I understand the thought process....but what do you epect to accomplish by this other than missing out on hockey?
  23. toby91_ca

    NHL Fan Lockout Pledge

    I think they were really worried about fan reaction in 1994...scared to death of it. Somewhat worried in 2004 if they lost the season, but I think there is much less worry on either side now because history has shown that the fans will come back. The problem with the plan is that the fans won't follow through, they will come back as soon as games are played again.....if not, are they really fans? If they stay away, how does that help the game? I suppose it could help when the next CBA is about to expire, but that would only work if the fans that decide to punish them will stay away forever....which is only the case if they are not fans.....so...again, what's the point?
  24. toby91_ca

    [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

    I don't think the proposals are all that different. The NHLPA will get to 50/50, but in a phased in approach so they can collect on curent contracts. NHL wants 50/50 immediately. Here's what I don't understand. It is much less important for the owners to get to 50/50 immediately as it is for the players to be able to phase it in. The players only have a finite life left to earn money. The owners are it for the very long run. Why don't the owners see this key issue and work something to protect the players that can only earn money for the next few years on average. The issue may be just that though....why would the owners budge. They know the players have far more to lose by not playing, so they are getting advice to wait it out and the players will cave eventually. This is probably true, but the players are going to try and stand strong....admiral, but not smart. If they stand strong for too long, they will lose more money than they will ever be able to get back by whatever better deal they are able to make....I will guarantee that. They'll say it is worth if for the future generation of NHLers, but really, those guys will be on completely different CBAs. I guess you can look at it as setting a precedent, but not sure why the players would push so hard for that. I agree with the players fighting for their rights, I just think they should think about it a little more smarter and what's in it for them.
  25. toby91_ca

    [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

    Didn't the PA's last proposal start at 54 or 55% and get to 52%? Backes suggested the new proposals made a great step to getting a deal done, how can they be nowhere near 50/50? Maybe it's just Bettman talking his own language the same way he was when he said no rollbacks in the NHL's proposal. The best I can hope for now is that Bettman is just speaking that way to negotiate a better deal, but it looks bad, very bad. I fully expected Bettman to come and say the NHLPA didn't come far enough, the proposals are overly encouraging.......then this would lead to some hard negotiations over the next several days, but based on what he said today, I don't see how that happens and I'm extremely pissed off about it. I focused too much time today and keeping up to date on this.....for what?