2458 replies to this topic

[Nightfall]

No, you're wrong.

$250M is your estimate. Which just means it's a made up number that you think is fairly close whatever the real number is. However, it's irrelevant. The average price actually paid for an NHL team is $139M. Even that is irrelevant, since again owners don't buy their teams every year, and no one looks to buy an NHL team for a 1 year profit.

And again, the numbers I gave are not "league as a whole", it is the average per team.

League-wide profits in '10-11: $126.5M
'09-10: $160M
'08-09: $183.5M
'07-08: $141.5M
'06-07: $95.4M
'05-06: $125.1M
'11-12 ~$110M (Your estimate, probably low)

Total league-wide for term of prior CBA: ~$942M
Average per team: ~$31.4M
Total league-wide revenues for term: $19.591B
Average per team: $653M

Average profit margin: 31.4/653 = ~4.8%

And paying outside the cap (players' share, more accurately) would solve the problem from the player's perspective (which is why they proposed it), but not the owners. Whether the owners are paying out of pocket or out of revenues before they go into their pocket means nothing. No matter how you try to phrase it, no matter what accounting chicanery you employ, you can't escape the simple mathematical fact that 50% + any amount of money needed to make up the shortfall = >50%. There is no way to get around it (barring requisite revenue growth of course). Owners either pay more than 50%, or players get less than they're owed next year. If players get less, it's either a straight pay cut, or that money is deferred. If deferred, then in later years owners again need to pay more than 50%, or future players take a larger relative pay cut (below 50%). It simply doesn't matter what you do. If existing contracts are honored, then in some year or another either owners need to pay more than 50%, or players need to earn less than 50%.

$250 million is the average value of an NHL team. It isn't some made up number. Please read the article I posted.

As for the numbers you posted, the revenues did show well, but those are not profits. The profts of $31 million per team for 6 years is very low. You are still looking at an average of 1.5%. Imagine how it is for the Red Wings who have a very successful franchise and Illitch is making less on his asset in comparison to others.

The point is that the profit in comparison to the asset is very low, which is what you are finally seeing. Now if it was a straight 50/50 split for the last 6 years, it would have been a lot more fair. Now, the owners are not going to get that true split for at least 6 years, but that is their own fault.

The owners can and should pay for every contract. The concept is very simple. If the split is 50-50, then the owners are responsible to pay the extra 7% out of pocket and off the salary cap to the players. i do get what you are saying though. In the salary cap era though, if the owners are shelling out the money for their decisions with a portion of it off the cap, then it can still work. All new contracts will be lower, and in future years, they will even out. Think of it as a 50/50 split from 2012-13 forward.

Don't Bettman and the NHL want to see Crosby play this season?

Get this deal done already.

Haha, if it were only that easy.

[thegerkin]

Player opinions from the 1994-95 season. I've seen this video before and Chelios sounds like a mobster lol. But when you have Wayne Gretzky pissed, things are out of hand.

[chances14]

another thing to keep in mind for the union holding out for a better deal.

over 200 nhlpa members never played a another game when the league came back after 04-05. so while holding out might be beneficial for the younger guys, this is going to effectively end the careers for some of their fellow older veteran members.

Edited by chances14, 28 October 2012 - 11:35 PM.

[frankgrimes]

Don't Bettman and the NHL want to see Crosby play this season?

Get this deal done already.

Do you honestly believe Bettman even knows which position his BFF is playing?

Chances players are holding out for a better deal, period. Most people would do the same, if the owners are serious about helping rescuing the money losing franchises they better start crafting a fair deal soon...

Sent from my BlackBerry

[Buppy]

$250 million is the average value of an NHL team. It isn't some made up number. Please read the article I posted.

As for the numbers you posted, the revenues did show well, but those are not profits. The profts of $31 million per team for 6 years is very low. You are still looking at an average of 1.5%. Imagine how it is for the Red Wings who have a very successful franchise and Illitch is making less on his asset in comparison to others.

The point is that the profit in comparison to the asset is very low, which is what you are finally seeing. Now if it was a straight 50/50 split for the last 6 years, it would have been a lot more fair. Now, the owners are not going to get that true split for at least 6 years, but that is their own fault.

The owners can and should pay for every contract. The concept is very simple. If the split is 50-50, then the owners are responsible to pay the extra 7% out of pocket and off the salary cap to the players. i do get what you are saying though. In the salary cap era though, if the owners are shelling out the money for their decisions with a portion of it off the cap, then it can still work. All new contracts will be lower, and in future years, they will even out. Think of it as a 50/50 split from 2012-13 forward.
...

It's still an estimate. Regardless of the veracity of the number, comparing a single year of profit to the price you'd have to pay to buy the team doesn't mean anything. At least not anything relevant to this discussion. (Even using $250M value, the actual % would be 1.79. For reference, MLB is 2.38%, NFL is 3.71%, and NBA is 1.48%. All that really means is that as a rule, sports teams are considered more valuable than what might be indicated by profitability.)

Yearly profit (or actually, it's operating income, net profit would be less) has been around 5% of revenue. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes like a 5 year-old, that's your problem.

Yes, the owners can and should pay every contract. That is what I, the PA, and others that support the PA have been saying all along. The problem is that the owners aren't willing to do that. They want to pay 50%, and make future players pay the difference. Players want the owners to pay the difference. You can say it "works", but that's just a word. Anything can "work" if the two sides agree to it.

First off, the cap doesn't mean anything. The cap could be an octopus with a dollar sign in front of it and it wouldn't do anything but confuse people. What matters is the players' share. That is the amount of money that players actually get, regardless of what the cap numbers are, regardless of what contracts are...the players get the players' share.

Let's try an example:
Say we use an applicable % of 50%. Assume full season revenue of $3.4B. The players' share is $1.7B

From that share, you subtract benefits; league is estimating $95M. That leaves $1.605B for player salaries.

Current contracts are valued at $1.74B according to Capgeek, with most roster spots full. Capgeek shows around another $53M in potential bonuses. Fehr says player contracts are $1.776B. Seems close enough to use in an example. Using that we're left with $171M that someone has to pay. If the owners pay it, then for all practical purposes, the players' share is $1.871B, and the true % is ~55%. If we defer that payment instead...

Move on to year two:
Assume full season revenue of $3.57B. The players' share is $1.785B.

If you use a part of that to pay the year 1 shortfall, the amount actually earned by the players that year is only $1.614B (since $171M was earned the prior year), which gives a true % of ~45.2%. If the owners pay out of pocket, then the share is $1.956B and the % is ~54.8%.

And so on. It will never "even out". Either the owners pay more than 50%, or the players earn less. That is a mathematical fact. One or the other has to happen. The one and only possible way to avoid that is if revenues next year are $3.742B or more. Anything less and it is absolutely impossible to have a "true" 50/50 split, whether you go 2 years, or 5, or 500. Someone has to pay the difference. Neither side is willing to at this point.

I, the PA, and those who support the PA, say the owners should pay it. You say the owners should pay, but either you don't really mean it or you don't know what you're talking about.

[hillbillywingsfan]

Do you honestly believe Bettman even knows which position his BFF is playing?

Chances players are holding out for a better deal, period. Most people would do the same, if the owners are serious about helping rescuing the money losing franchises they better start crafting a fair deal soon...

Sent from my BlackBerry

And the players need to start accepting the deals the owners are giving them if they want to play again. Owners are not budging rightly so.

[Nightfall]

http://www.theglobea...article4726378/

Expect the Winter Classic to be canceled by Friday. Damn.

[BottleOfSmoke]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/winter-classic-on-the-chopping-block-with-no-end-in-sight-to-nhl-lockout/article4726378/

Expect the Winter Classic to be canceled by Friday. Damn.

I feel like I'm gonna puke.

[Nightfall]

It's still an estimate. Regardless of the veracity of the number, comparing a single year of profit to the price you'd have to pay to buy the team doesn't mean anything. At least not anything relevant to this discussion. (Even using $250M value, the actual % would be 1.79. For reference, MLB is 2.38%, NFL is 3.71%, and NBA is 1.48%. All that really means is that as a rule, sports teams are considered more valuable than what might be indicated by profitability.)

The estimate is done by Forbes which I consider to be very accurate. Here is another one...

http://www.plunkettresearch.com/sports-recreation-leisure-market-research/industry-statistics

I don't know about the other franchises in the NBA, MLB, or NFL. Where did you get the figures that you found. I thought the profit margins would be more-so in those franchises. I did a quick look on Forbes and found the NBA Valuations list but there was no input on the profit compared. This plunkett research pretty much mimics what Forbes found.

So now that we have established that the number isn't "just made up".....

I feel the owners do have a right to have the ability to make more on their asset. Doesn't matter if they are billionaires or not. With a 43% cut, I feel that is not enough. Hell, I would feel it wouldn't be enough if the players made that much and I would be behind them 100% if they went on strike. A 50/50 split is the most equitable and fair. Players are risking their bodies while the owners are taking risk with the franchise.

I will say that you have some good points based on the owners/players split. I choose to think that the owners will payout for the contracts, but all new contracts will be a 50/50 split. Really, that is a gradual reduction, just like the NHLPA recommended. I was thinking of it as the owners paying out of their own pockets outside of their franchises. That way is "off the books" and the owners are writing the checks directly. Are the players taking a pay cut? From their respective leagues they are, but the owners are writing a check to the players on their roster for the difference. I would prefer to see owners who have been responsible write checks for less money, but thats up for discussion.

I feel like I'm gonna puke.

I already puked.

I won't be investing in the NHL when it comes back. The limit of my investment in the NHL will be my cable bill and watching them on TV. No Center Ice, no tickets, no merchandise, and so on. Yup, I am done with these greedy screwballs.

[Barrie]

http://www.theglobea...article4726378/

Expect the Winter Classic to be canceled by Friday. Damn.

I think it would be in the best interest to cancel the Winter Classic, even if they got a new deal in time. That would be a perfect game for the fans to protest. If only 50,000 fans showed up, out of 110,000, that would be a huge embarrassment!

[chances14]

posted it in the other thread but i suggest checking artlce out

http://www.sbnation....tive-reddit-ama


another good read by nick kyperos

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-lockout/2012/10/29/nhl_lockout_gary_bettman_jeremy_jacobs_owners_silence/

hopefully he is right

Edited by chances14, 29 October 2012 - 03:31 PM.

[Barrie]

I already puked.

I won't be investing in the NHL when it comes back. The limit of my investment in the NHL will be my cable bill and watching them on TV. No Center Ice, no tickets, no merchandise, and so on. Yup, I am done with these greedy screwballs.

Yeah I'm done spending money on the NHL too. The last of my favorite Red Wings, Holmstrom, has retired, so I can spend money and time elsewhere... Bettman has pissed me off so much, that I don't want to financially support the league anymore, and I'm not just saying that. Each year since the 05-06 lockout I've slowly lost interest, and this is the last straw. Despite the reports of record revenues, I think the league has turned into a big joke (bankrupt franchises, head shots, concussions, lack of proper suspensions, an 8th seed winning the Cup). I've almost been looking for a reason to not watch anymore, and this lockout is the reason... Add to that, as a fan of a big market team, I despise the Hard Cap and Floor, and I don't think what they've been talking about in a new deal will address what's actually wrong. Unless they have a Luxury Tax and proper Revenue Sharing there will be another lockout in 6 years.

But, I continue to post my opinions because owners and players read forums, twitter, and facebook, so I want them to read what I think.

[rrasco]

I feel like I'm gonna puke.

Good. Now the NHL can give me back my $600 f*cking dollars that they have had for several months. When I get it, I'll be filing a civil suit for interest on my loan that the NHL stole from me by misleading me on to think there was going to be a season and eventually a Winter Classic.

[frankgrimes]

If this joke of a commsissioner would spend as much time negotiating as he did with cancellations and whining to the effing media, we'd be having a season by now.

[Pskov Wings Fan]

another good read by nick kyperos

http://www.sportsnet...owners_silence/

hopefully he is right

This is truly bizarre. There only 30 teams. It is a small enough number so that each owner can represent himself rather than delegate all the decisions to three individuals.

Jeremy Jacobs is 72 and apparently has no shortage of money. It would take a better psychologist than me to figure out what motivates him in the CBA fight. Show players who is the boss?

[Nightfall]

Good. Now the NHL can give me back my $600 f*cking dollars that they have had for several months. When I get it, I'll be filing a civil suit for interest on my loan that the NHL stole from me by misleading me on to think there was going to be a season and eventually a Winter Classic.

Imagine how the people in Chicago feel.

I say them because they were all charged for their season tickets. The blackhawks are paying it back as games are canceled. The season ticket holders are pretty pissed because they pretty much are giving the Blackhawks a interest free loan. What a bunch of crap. IMHO, you don't charge people when the league is locked out. What a bunch of crap.

Yeah I'm done spending money on the NHL too. The last of my favorite Red Wings, Holmstrom, has retired, so I can spend money and time elsewhere... Bettman has pissed me off so much, that I don't want to financially support the league anymore, and I'm not just saying that. Each year since the 05-06 lockout I've slowly lost interest, and this is the last straw. Despite the reports of record revenues, I think the league has turned into a big joke (bankrupt franchises, head shots, concussions, lack of proper suspensions, an 8th seed winning the Cup). I've almost been looking for a reason to not watch anymore, and this lockout is the reason... Add to that, as a fan of a big market team, I despise the Hard Cap and Floor, and I don't think what they've been talking about in a new deal will address what's actually wrong. Unless they have a Luxury Tax and proper Revenue Sharing there will be another lockout in 6 years.

But, I continue to post my opinions because owners and players read forums, twitter, and facebook, so I want them to read what I think.

The hard cap and floor really does make it tough for there to be a dynasty now. Now, 16 teams that make the playoffs can win the championship. The NHL has its parity, and that doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the greed and the unwillingness to compromise from both sides. Add in there that both would rather chirp about how they are getting screwed, and its really a no win scenario for everyone.

I am always going to be a hockey fan and a Wings fan. I just won't be spending $2000 a year on tickets, merchandise, gas to the games, hotel, and so on. The Wings will survive without me filling their pockets, but they lost a supporting fan at the games. I will be happy to watch them on TV. That will be the extent of my support.

[irishock]

Oh well. Just go ahead and cancel the entire season. The WC was the only thing worth looking up to anyways.

[Buppy]

The estimate is done by Forbes which I consider to be very accurate. Here is another one...

http://www.plunkettr...stry-statistics

I don't know about the other franchises in the NBA, MLB, or NFL. Where did you get the figures that you found. I thought the profit margins would be more-so in those franchises. I did a quick look on Forbes and found the NBA Valuations list but there was no input on the profit compared. This plunkett research pretty much mimics what Forbes found.

So now that we have established that the number isn't "just made up".....

I feel the owners do have a right to have the ability to make more on their asset. Doesn't matter if they are billionaires or not. With a 43% cut, I feel that is not enough. Hell, I would feel it wouldn't be enough if the players made that much and I would be behind them 100% if they went on strike. A 50/50 split is the most equitable and fair. Players are risking their bodies while the owners are taking risk with the franchise.

I will say that you have some good points based on the owners/players split. I choose to think that the owners will payout for the contracts, but all new contracts will be a 50/50 split. Really, that is a gradual reduction, just like the NHLPA recommended. I was thinking of it as the owners paying out of their own pockets outside of their franchises. That way is "off the books" and the owners are writing the checks directly. Are the players taking a pay cut? From their respective leagues they are, but the owners are writing a check to the players on their roster for the difference. I would prefer to see owners who have been responsible write checks for less money, but thats up for discussion.
...

It's like we're not even on the same internet. But whatever, I'm done arguing about team value. You keep missing my main point, which is that operating income relative to current team value doesn't mean anything. That's not what a profit margin is, not what ROI is. It's just a number you came up with, and since it's small you plug it into your argument and call it "proof".

Worse yet, it seems (at times at least) that you don't even disagree with me or the PA. It's like you have some obsessive need to blame both sides, so you throw up all these straw men to argue against. Literally no one has, on either side or in this thread, proposed keeping the 43/57 split. Every single proposal is better from the owners perspective. No need to say "the owners have a right..., 43% is not enough...", since no one has ever disputed that. I may dispute the level "needed", but that's not really relevant since the PA has shown themselves willing to get down to ~50% at the end. Maybe not "guaranteed", but the growth needed to get there is very modest compared to what we've seen the last 20 years. (At least, it would have been modest before the lockout.) Maybe not exactly 50%, but the difference at that point is very small, and I'm sure the PA would be willing to negotiate that if the league accepted the principles for the first few years. What exactly are you arguing against?

Your argument comes off like the PA says, "we're willing to take a gradual reduction to 50%", and your response is, "damn you greedy screwballs, you need to take a gradual reduction to 50%". So again, what is your big issue with the PA proposals? That they don't get to 50% by year 2?

[Nightfall]

Your argument comes off like the PA says, "we're willing to take a gradual reduction to 50%", and your response is, "damn you greedy screwballs, you need to take a gradual reduction to 50%". So again, what is your big issue with the PA proposals? That they don't get to 50% by year 2?

The issue I have with the PA proposals are two fold.

First, the NHLPA didn't negotiate in good faith by dragging their feet through this entire process. It took them until June to even come to the table, and then 3 weeks after the NHL proposal to actually propose something of their own. So Fehr dragging his feet is the first thing I blame the NHLPA for.

Secondly, the NHLPA and NHL are both being greedy and not willing to compromise anything. In addition, there is no willingness to work together. If you read the deals, there is a deal to be made. Could the NHL be less greedy and not ask for so much? Yes. Could the NHLPA give up a little bit to make a deal happen? Yes. So why aren't either side willing to budge? Even worse, why are both sides just playing the media? The NHL says that they are willing to meet, but that the NHLPA doesn't want to talk their language. The same goes for the NHLPA. Lastly, there are no hard negotiation sessions happening.

So its a little bit of everything. There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides in these negotiations. I believe that both sides should come to the middle a little bit in order to make that happen. I also believe that both sides are in the wrong by involving the media more and getting both sides to the table and negotiating less.

If anything, I am arguing that both leaders should be fired. Both sides have been a miserable failure to their sides and horrible to hockey fans. The respective leadership teams of both sides should also be fired. Its time to get a new group of leaders in these positions that are more willing to work together to achieve a goal.

Finally, I do have an issue with people taking sides on this issue. The NHL and NHLPA have both sinned in these negotiations. To claim that one side is more deserving than the other is a fallacy. Both sides together have failed the sport of hockey and the fans. Bettman is just as at fault for the lockout as Fehr. Its time to kick both these guys in the ass and out of their respective positions.

This is why I am not supporting the NHL anymore with anything more than my cable bill. They can get their share from Fox Sports Detroit or the NHL Network advertising. They won't get a penny out of me when it comes to merchandise, tickets, parking, gas, travel time, and so on. I encourage all fans who are furious with the NHL and NHLPA to do the same. Speak with your wallets.

Edited by Nightfall, 29 October 2012 - 09:23 PM.

[Pskov Wings Fan]

Could the NHL be less greedy and not ask for so much? Yes. Could the NHLPA give up a little bit to make a deal happen? Yes.

You appear to be starting from the premise that players have to give to the owners. Why? Should not players be getting something in return for reduced share? Yet NHL wanted to restrict their contracting rights as well at the same time.

If anything, I am arguing that both leaders should be fired. Both sides have been a miserable failure to their sides and horrible to hockey fans. The respective leadership teams of both sides should also be fired. Its time to get a new group of leaders in these positions that are more willing to work together to achieve a goal.

I think Fehr at this point has support of the players. And only they can fire him.

I actually have no idea what the procedure is for removing NHL commissioner. Might be interesting to find out.