Lockout

Forum for Pittsburgh Penguins-related messages.

Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf

Re: Lockout

Postby shmenguin on Wed Nov 28, 2012 2:30 pm

tfrizz wrote:http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/why-sidney-crosby-skate-over-khl-173518527--nhl.html

Look, we all know Alex Oveckin's jetting to the KHL the moment the owners lock him out for various reasons. Crosby's different: He's the poster child for the League, and Canada's Golden Boy. If he leaves North America to play in Europe, it becomes a global hockey story and a "canary in a coal mine" one at that — how bad are things if Sidney Crosby would take his fragile neck to play in what amount to professional scrimmages in his eyes?

His leaving would have optic and political fallout. Frankly, it'd be an embarrassment to the League that it's gotten this far.


ugh...not a surprising overstatement from wyshinski.

all this means is that it's not good for a player of his caliber to be away from competitive hockey for too long. aside from the penguins, no one who matters is going to care either way what sid does.

i thought it was already settled that players going overseas was irrelevant. i guess it's time to recycle the trash.
shmenguin
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,586
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:34 pm

Re: Lockout

Postby BurghersAndDogsSports on Wed Nov 28, 2012 2:56 pm

tfrizz wrote:
BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:The wild signed those deals to try to increase attendance and drive up playoff revenue (similar to the flyers), that's how it works in sports, better teams have a chance to make more money. They felt signing those deals would increase revenue.

And a BIG ps here, Sutter and Parise caused this issue in their own by forcing teams to write in bonuses so they would get them and protect themselves from a lockout. If it wasn't the Wild it would have been some other team, and nobody signed them to deals it would have been collusion.


The point isn't so much why the Wild signed them - they are big name players who will draw in fans and boost revenue. The point is that Leipold was complaining about those front-loaded contracts before signing Suter & Parise, then signs them to front-loaded contracts and tries to make like nothing happened.


But from that point, I am seeing it as a huge problem in that is how teams like the Wild have to sign guys to compete. Thats what the loopholes are such a big sticking point. In theory, should the Wild then just take themselves out of any major free agents no matter what the owners hates about the contract rules?

I agree slightly from a post above about the player who stated the loopholes are allowing guys to be signed, but he is looking at it from a one team tangible example. From a non tangible overall example it is very detrimental to the overall health of the league if you look at the entire point of a cap is to make it competitive for each team. Revenues increased dramatically when a cap was introduced and all teams had a reasonable chance to at least compete, that is what drove up the players salaries.

Look at the Penguins, they were set to open up $8 million under the cap next season. While I dont think the main reason was because of cash flow, by next season under the same CBA, the Pens who run a tight budget and just signed Malkin could be $10 million under the cap while spending towards it. That doesnt open up more cash for other players because of the cap space, maybe in New York, but not mid level teams and below. It hurts their ability to put a team on the ice, keep their stars and compete.
BurghersAndDogsSports
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,085
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa

Re: Lockout

Postby shmenguin on Wed Nov 28, 2012 3:01 pm

it's worth remembering that parise and suter still got their big signing bonuses - untouched by rollbacks.
shmenguin
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,586
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:34 pm

Re: Lockout

Postby BurghersAndDogsSports on Wed Nov 28, 2012 3:16 pm

MRandall25 wrote:NFL owners do what's best for the NFL. NHL owners do what's best for their bottom line (again, paraphrasing Seth).


I dont know, I hate to keep being a huge defender of the NHL owners, lord knows like Boston they have some real @#$ holes. But its very easy for NFL owners to do whats best for the league, they all make piles of money even the mid level teams and split a huge TV contract. By Mara sharing some of his overall revenue and keeping the league competitive it keeps the ratings up nationally, therefore keeping the national tv money coming in.

If NFL teams had teams like the Pirates it would significantly hurt their league wide revenue. Some nfl owners are just as bad anyways, Jerry Jones tried to keep all the money for himself, Al Davis was a psycho.

I just find it hard to say "NHL owners only care about their wallets and NFL do whats best for the league" when 20+ NHL teams lost money last year and all 32 NFL teams had their payrolls covered by one national tv deal.
BurghersAndDogsSports
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,085
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa

Re: Lockout

Postby Jesse on Wed Nov 28, 2012 3:18 pm

This is the article I wanted to write. Mirtle did it better than I ever could have. Complete with a graph! Because visual learning is fun.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/h ... le5719309/
Jesse
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 10,641
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:07 am
Location: The Land of Condescending Posters

Re: Lockout

Postby shmenguin on Wed Nov 28, 2012 3:39 pm

you can't bring the NFL into this discussion. apples and oranges.
shmenguin
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,586
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:34 pm

Re: Lockout

Postby no name on Wed Nov 28, 2012 3:44 pm

BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:
RisslingsMissingTeeth wrote:


Best part of it is finally a player saying "they are trying to protect themselves from themselves". Finally it is getting through someone's heads. The owner's aren't trying to 'destroy' the NHLPA, they are trying to create rules which their own GMs won't use to annihilate them.

Also loved his quote about how the proposed system will kill the middle class. That is an intelligent and thought provoking statement. One that I think merits some in-depth analysis from the news rags looking for something to write about.


I completely disagree with the common theme that owners are trying to protect themselves from the themselves. Players will use any loophole possible to drive up their demands. What are teams supposed to do: have money and not spend it on the demands of the best free agents available? Winning and potential drives up sales and increases revenue for teams. As much as we make fun of Philly sans a Stanley Cup it's not like they haven't had success in the past 4 or 5 years and some playoffs series wins or runs, thus increasing their revenue.

First, if the owners don't abide by the rules if the CBA, its collusion. Second, all in all it does not matter anyways because the players get a certain percentage of revenues. Therefore if the star players are jacking up their rates with loopholes. It drives down the portion of the players cut available, forcing teams to limit money available for middle of the road players and pushing roster spots to entry level contracts thus killing the middle class of players and forcing the middle class of teams to lose still lose their top stars.

If no team did these loopholes the cash to players would still be the same overall amount, just better distributed.

All the owners are trying to do is create a competitive balance for the long term health of the league. Like I said before, Bettman is getting killed for giving in on contract stipulations in 2005 even though they made great strides and the league couldn't cut out everything. It just needs tweaked now. I mean, the NFL doesn't even guarantee contracts and these NHL clowns are crying foul about some contract stipulations, give me a break.

Although I think 5 years is pushing it the loopholes need to cut out in my opinion or its pointless.


These deals you are referring to are the work of 4 people, the least involved is the player. A Owner-GM- players agent- and the player himself. In the end once a GM and the Agent work out the details, they have to run it by the owner and the player. Its the end its the owner who should have the knowelege weather this deal will hurt or help the league. WIth the way thoes deals are used now it has become a joke.

But i can't blame any star player who would like to work a cap circumvention deal that will pay him a big payday and will help his team stay competitive during his playing days with the team. All the while giving him the freedom to retire when he wants to. Can't blame the player, he can only sign what he is offered.
no name
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 5,994
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:19 pm

Re: Lockout

Postby interstorm on Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:17 pm

shmenguin wrote:the notion of boycotting sponsors and season tickets and all that just hurts the NHLPA as much as it does the owners.


I think you make the false assumption that i care about getting more money for players. I have been quite clear that I believe a 50/50 split seems about right. Beyond that, it doesn't matter to me if those percentages are of a billion dollars or a thousand.
interstorm
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 719
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:53 pm

Re: Lockout

Postby MRandall25 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:26 pm

Does sponsor money even count towards hockey related revenue? Seems like it wouldn't make a difference one way or another. Plus, if one drops, another will just fill its place.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: why does it matter if you don't buy Bridgestone?
MRandall25
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 17,061
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:11 pm
Location: BOBROVSKY!!!

Re: Lockout

Postby interstorm on Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:49 pm

shmenguin wrote:you can't bring the NFL into this discussion. apples and oranges.


...but let's bring them in for a moment. Did you know:

The NFL as a whole reports operating income (as a pct of revenue) to be 4% (this is in-line with the average stock on the Dow as I previously stated and not far from the 2% for the NHL).

If NFL revenue was adjusted to be that of NHL (and working with same NFL percentages), over half the league would make $10.5 million or less.

3 NFL teams "lost" money last year (oakland, detroit, pittsburgh).

...so what does the NHL expect? Should every team make $25 million? Given the revenue stream that is complete fantasy. Now every team should have a shot at a profit...but as even football, the gold standard for sports leagues, shows- even teams "lose" money there. The comparisons also show the NHL isn't bleeding to death - far from it.

...oh, and as someone pointed out earlier today, Forbes released NHL franchise values. I only compared the few I knew...but more outstanding appreciation for owners. THAT is where their money is (ahem...because owning a team is an INVESTMENT), not in the couple million here or there.

...and burger- I don't even know where to begin with your posts. They are littered with so much nonsense I don't know where to start. I can't even begin to respond now because it would take me hours to copy/paste with my phone. Just a couple clarifications:

* collusion and financial responsibility are not the same. Nowhere does the CBA say each team HAS to spend to the ceiling. They could exercise restraint and hold back because....uh....they don't have the money.

* minnesota. They play to 98.4% capacity for home attendance. They were in first place in december (so the team has good stuff at the major level). Their prospects are rated #2 overall. The team is on a good path even without those 2. Since attendance is well, they may have to make money at the playoff gate just to pay for them. I'd like to see someone run the numbers- I am guessing (based off ticket sales) the wild would have to advance to the finals each year just to cover the additional expense of these guys.
Last edited by interstorm on Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
interstorm
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 719
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:53 pm

Re: Lockout

Postby interstorm on Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:57 pm

MRandall25 wrote:Does sponsor money even count towards hockey related revenue? Seems like it wouldn't make a difference one way or another. Plus, if one drops, another will just fill its place.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: why does it matter if you don't buy Bridgestone?


Lets imagine a world where NHL fans (or americans in general) were activists:

Lets say bridgestone paid 5 million for naming rights to the classic and an additional 5 elsewhere.

If fans boycotted and were able to make Bridgestone not want to renew their agreement...yes, someone would in turn take their place. I would guess, however, the cost could very well be less as sponsors- seeing what happened to Bridgestone _ would be wary.

I admit it is a useless tactic unless a large quantity of people join. But hey, history is full of similar successful examples where a small few got the public behind them to force change. This is the only course of action fans could realistically take.
interstorm
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 719
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:53 pm

Re: Lockout

Postby shmenguin on Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:17 pm

interstorm wrote:
shmenguin wrote:you can't bring the NFL into this discussion. apples and oranges.


...but let's bring them in for a moment. Did you know:

The NFL as a whole reports operating income (as a pct of revenue) to be 4% (this is in-line with the average stock on the Dow as I previously stated and not far from the 2% for the NHL).

If NFL revenue was adjusted to be that of NHL (and working with same NFL percentages), over half the league would make $10.5 million or less.

3 NFL teams "lost" money last year (oakland, detroit, pittsburgh).

...so what does the NHL expect? Should every team make $25 million? Given the revenue stream that is complete fantasy. Now every team should have a shot at a profit...but as even football, the gold standard for sports leagues, shows- even teams "lose" money there. The comparisons also show the NHL isn't bleeding to death - far from it.

...oh, and as someone pointed out earlier today, Forbes released NHL franchise values. I only compared the few I knew...but more outstanding appreciation for owners. THAT is where their money is (ahem...because owning a team is an INVESTMENT), not in the couple million here or there.

...and burger- I don't even know where to begin with your posts. They are littered with so much nonsense I don't know where to start. I can't even begin to respond now because it would take me hours to copy/paste with my phone. Just a couple clarifications:

* collusion and financial responsibility are not the same. Nowhere does the CBA say each team HAS to spend to the ceiling. They could exercise restraint and hold back because....uh....they don't have the money.

* minnesota. They play to 98.4% capacity for home attendance. They were in first place in december (so the team has good stuff at the major level). Their prospects are rated #2 overall. The team is on a good path even without those 2. Since attendance is well, they may have to make money at the playoff gate just to pay for them. I'd like to see someone run the numbers- I am guessing (based off ticket sales) the wild would have to advance to the finals each year just to cover the additional expense of these guys.


Median profit for NFL teams: $33.5 million
Median profit for NHL teams: $-2.35 million

Mean profit for NFL teams: $41 million
Mean profit for NHL teams: $3.88 million

% of teams losing money in the NFL: 10% (oakland and detroit are continually among the worst run teams in pro sports by the way - and pittsburgh is in the top half of most valued teams in the league at over $1 billion)
% of teams losing money in the NHL: 60%

i mean...i don't know what you were trying to accomplish in your post, but let's just stop mentioning the NFL here.
shmenguin
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,586
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:34 pm

Re: Lockout

Postby ulf on Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:18 pm

interstorm wrote:
shmenguin wrote:you can't bring the NFL into this discussion. apples and oranges.


...but let's bring them in for a moment. Did you know:

The NFL as a whole reports operating income (as a pct of revenue) to be 4% (this is in-line with the average stock on the Dow as I previously stated and not far from the 2% for the NHL).

I stopped reading here. That isn't "not far." It's very far. Twice as high. 100% higher. Sure 4 and 2 seem close, but when you're talking percentage points of billions, that's not in the same universe, in terms of dollars.
ulf
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 13,856
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:41 pm

Re: Lockout

Postby MRandall25 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:20 pm

Probably nitpicking, but according to the new Forbes report, 13 teams lost money = 43%
MRandall25
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 17,061
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:11 pm
Location: BOBROVSKY!!!

Re: Lockout

Postby BurghersAndDogsSports on Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:46 pm

interstorm wrote:
shmenguin wrote:you can't bring the NFL into this discussion. apples and oranges.


...but let's bring them in for a moment. Did you know:

The NFL as a whole reports operating income (as a pct of revenue) to be 4% (this is in-line with the average stock on the Dow as I previously stated and not far from the 2% for the NHL).

If NFL revenue was adjusted to be that of NHL (and working with same NFL percentages), over half the league would make $10.5 million or less.

3 NFL teams "lost" money last year (oakland, detroit, pittsburgh).

...so what does the NHL expect? Should every team make $25 million? Given the revenue stream that is complete fantasy. Now every team should have a shot at a profit...but as even football, the gold standard for sports leagues, shows- even teams "lose" money there. The comparisons also show the NHL isn't bleeding to death - far from it.

...oh, and as someone pointed out earlier today, Forbes released NHL franchise values. I only compared the few I knew...but more outstanding appreciation for owners. THAT is where their money is (ahem...because owning a team is an INVESTMENT), not in the couple million here or there.

...and burger- I don't even know where to begin with your posts. They are littered with so much nonsense I don't know where to start. I can't even begin to respond now because it would take me hours to copy/paste with my phone. Just a couple clarifications:

* collusion and financial responsibility are not the same. Nowhere does the CBA say each team HAS to spend to the ceiling. They could exercise restraint and hold back because....uh....they don't have the money.

* minnesota. They play to 98.4% capacity for home attendance. They were in first place in december (so the team has good stuff at the major level). Their prospects are rated #2 overall. The team is on a good path even without those 2. Since attendance is well, they may have to make money at the playoff gate just to pay for them. I'd like to see someone run the numbers- I am guessing (based off ticket sales) the wild would have to advance to the finals each year just to cover the additional expense of these guys.


Mine are nonsense because I say if the NHL teams get together and decide to limit the ways they pay players and decide as a ground not to give into certain demands across the board that is collusion. But you say it's financial responsibility not do that.

Its not financial responsibilty because IT IS the teams with the money that are causing the problems. Just as any FYI:

Everyone is focused on the wild without realizing the main issue is these loopholes drive a larger wedge between the haves and have nots, or push the cash out of pocket on the mid level team like the pens. The issue brings into play competitive balance and health of the league, or the loopholes going against exactly what the CBA is supposed to create and why competitive balance is healthy all around.

Next you compare the NHL to the NFL once again using these %'s which I have already explained mean nothing but you seem to think it makes sense even thoug not one person, economist, lawyer, accountant or Don Fehr of the NHL ever bring it up.

In fairness: See the posts above and look at actual dollars made per team per league just see how absolutely absurd it is for you to continuously push this smoking gun you think you found comparing sports leagues to whatever else and using algorithms instead of basic facts. Profit.

Finally, apparently you understand very little about how NHL teams make money with your little statistical breakdown of the Wild. All valid points, except you missed the biggest one which is attendance and minor league systems don't get you paid in the playoffs, they wouldn't have to make the finals or they wouldn't have signed the players.

the wild took a run at two superstars to try and guarantee big money payments at the end of the season. The pens admit they need the second round to make profits.

Instead of playing economist you just actually become a season ticket holder, pay for playoff tickets, and use a calculator to multiply ticket cost x available seats x parking x food x beer x gsmes per round and see why NHL teams like the Wild or Pens, even with decent teams will do what they can to get to the second round.
They are trying to compete because each round is a windfall.

My posts are actually filled with common sense, as in no rollbacks mean more to the overall health of the league and not profits as compared to splitting the HRR with a %.

You clearly are the one who has been digging really really deep here.
Last edited by BurghersAndDogsSports on Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
BurghersAndDogsSports
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,085
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa

Re: Lockout

Postby tfrizz on Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:46 pm

MRandall25 wrote:Probably nitpicking, but according to the new Forbes report, 13 teams lost money = 43%


Just to expand on that...

There is also an incredible bifurcation of cash flow. Overall operating income (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) almost doubled during the 2011-12 season, to $250 million. But the sport’s three most profitable teams–the Maple Leafs ($81.9 million), Rangers ($74 million), Canadians ($51.6 million)–accounted for 83% of the league’s income, while 13 of 30 teams lost money, before non-cash expenses and interest payments.

If the salary cap were lowered to, say, 50% of revenue and the subsidies from high-revenue teams to their low-revenue rivals were increased to $200 million from the current $150 million, which is essentially where the two sides seem to be headed, small-market team values would get a big boost (as was the case in the NBA when the New Orleans Hornets and Memphis Grizzles sold for $338 million and $330 million, respectively, after the league worked out a new labor pact last year). The league’s overall profitability would also increase. But teams like the Carolina Hurricanes, Phoenix Coyotes, Tampa Bay Lightning, Anaheim Ducks and Columbus Blue Jackets would still have trouble making money unless they went at least two rounds in the playoffs.

Drew Dorweiler, managing partner of Dartmouth Partners in Montreal, thinks the league needs to move some teams. “The Sun Belt has had plenty of time to prove that the viability doesn’t work.” Dorweiler thinks Quebec, where ground has already been broken for a new arena, will eventually get an NHL team, and he also thinks Portland, where minor league hockey is popular, and Seattle, where the city has approved a new arena, would be better cities to house teams than Arizona, North Carolina and Florida, where NHL teams are losing money.


Here are the teams that lost money, according to Forbes:
  1. Phoenix Coyotes - $20.6-million
  2. Columbus Blue Jackets - $18.7-million
  3. New York Islanders - $16.0-million
  4. Tampa Bay Lightning - $13.1-million
  5. Florida Panthers - $12.0-million
  6. Anaheim Ducks - $10.8-million
  7. Buffalo Sabres - $10.4-million
  8. St Louis Blues - $10.0-million
  9. Carolina Hurricanes - $9.4-million
  10. Minnesota Wild - $3.9-million
  11. Nashville Predators - $3.4-million
  12. Washington Capitals - $1.0-million
  13. San Jose Sharks - $0.9-million
Last edited by tfrizz on Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
tfrizz
AHL Hall of Famer
AHL Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 8,173
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:49 am
Location: Freddy Beach

Re: Lockout

Postby columbia on Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:49 pm

That, of course, raises the question of their viability.

Even a loser franchise like the Pirates turns a profit.
columbia
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 46,733
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:13 am

Re: Lockout

Postby MRandall25 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:54 pm

columbia wrote:That, of course, raises the question of their viability.

Even a loser franchise like the Pirates turns a profit.


But a loser franchise like the Pirates doesn't spend. Period. Plus they don't have a cap.
MRandall25
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 17,061
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:11 pm
Location: BOBROVSKY!!!

Re: Lockout

Postby Godric on Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:58 pm

columbia wrote:That, of course, raises the question of their viability.

Even a loser franchise like the Pirates turns a profit.


but thats with MLB revenue sharing right?
Godric
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,240
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 10:19 am
Location: Switch the style up and if they hate, let em hate and watch the money pile up

Re: Lockout

Postby columbia on Wed Nov 28, 2012 6:02 pm

Godric wrote:
columbia wrote:That, of course, raises the question of their viability.

Even a loser franchise like the Pirates turns a profit.


but thats with MLB revenue sharing right?


True, but they actually spend within their budget.

Presumably the owners of these marginal NHL teams have worked in business before and know how to balance a budget (based on expected risk).

I
columbia
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 46,733
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:13 am

Re: Lockout

Postby tfrizz on Wed Nov 28, 2012 6:02 pm

Godric wrote:
columbia wrote:That, of course, raises the question of their viability.

Even a loser franchise like the Pirates turns a profit.


but thats with MLB revenue sharing right?


Even if that's the case, the 13 teams that lost money last season totalled $130.2-million in losses. With $150-million in revenue sharing, no team should've actually lost money.
tfrizz
AHL Hall of Famer
AHL Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 8,173
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:49 am
Location: Freddy Beach

Re: Lockout

Postby pens_CT on Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:16 pm

columbia wrote:That, of course, raises the question of their viability.

Even a loser franchise like the Pirates turns a profit.

This upcoming season all MLB teams receive 50 million dollars in TV revenue, impossible for the Pirates or similar teams with their limited payroll not to make money. No such luxury in a gate driven sport like the NHL.
pens_CT
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 2,547
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:47 pm

Re: Lockout

Postby mikey287 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:18 pm

The Forbes numbers, as usual, are highly suspect. They simply do not have the resources or sources to have accurate data. Nor does operating income directly correlate to profit/loss, as the article and numbers seem to imply. Best we have to work with numbers wise, but highly dubious...
mikey287
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 17,458
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 6:40 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA - @MichaelFarkasHF

Re: Lockout

Postby mikey287 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:36 pm

interstorm wrote:
mikey287 wrote:That's alright. Some people hate common sense and backing their arguments with facts...you can't be a propagandist without a little ambiguity and misplaced assumption, right?


c'mon mikey - i think the only misplaced assumption is saying that i haven't provided facts and common sense. you're usually much more thorough (which i honestly do appreciate and respect). just today alone i stated how the average NHL franchise has appreciated in value better than the average stock on the Dow (by more than double the margin at 19% for the Dow to 43% for NHL teams). that's ok...can't read every page.


I did kind of want to ignore this thread for a bit, but this was addressed to me, so it's not right to not at least acknowledge it.

Re: stock market. Relevance? Comparative to other sports? Numbers used? Help me out here, I really don't know what that means to the situation...

interstorm wrote:my position has always been that the owners and players should split 50/50 but that there doesn't need to be an immediate cut over to this figure. i believe a promise has been made to players (in the form of a contract) that the teams need to honor -- and by honor I mean the assumed dollar value, not a redefinition of it based on a lower HRR the owners themselves create.


In theory, I don't disagree. It should be noted though, that the very agreement that these contracts were negotiated under has expired with a known expiry date. Additionally, as per that very agreement in which the contracts were rendered, at no point does it promise 100% of that contract to be fulfilled. I'm not sure why all of a sudden now, does every cent need to be accounted for...when they played for 7 years in a fluctuating system.

interstorm wrote:as for common sense -- how in the world are we supposed to look at the minnesota wild, a team reporting to have "lost" 6 million this past year and went on the biggest player shopping spree in recent memory this off-season, and feel like the system isn't working for them. How in the world am I to think the NHL finances are broken because the Washington Capitals lose 7.5 million yet (according to CapGeek) have had the following cap space for the last 3 years (2011-2012) ZERO, (2010-2011) ZERO, (2009-2010) $3 Million. common sense -- it's right there!


Well, first of all, Craig Leipold isn't exactly smelling of roses at any given time. But the Wild's honeymoon is over and they need to start putting a team together that attracts fans. They bring home their prodigal son and a top-20 defenseman to do that. It's an investment...in a business...that has a ton of potential but isn't flourishing. Unfortunately, given the atypical split in revenues (57/43 vs. 50/50), inflationary spending becomes not only a product, but compulsory for survival. Eat or be eaten. You don't make friends with salad. I own a Mikko Koivu and a Pierre-Marc Bouchard jersey...but that's old news to Minnesota. That's not playoff spots to Minnesota. You make a deep playoff run and red ink turns to black. It's an advantage to the players that teams can't sit back - like the unrequited love that is Pittsburgh Pirates baseball - and profit off of being the farm team to a big market club. When the prisoners ran the prison...that is, when the players ran the league in the mid-90's through mid-00's, that's what happened. People complained that Minnesota was putting out a $22 million lineup against the $70 million Rangers and when the trade deadline came along, they sold off their assets to Detroit...now, Minnesota is in that "coin toss zone" of a playoff run making or breaking their bottom line and they are chastized for giving it a shot...

Which is it? Don't spend and pout and say the system is broken, we won't even try to better ourselves...or try and compete with the big dogs by any means necessary (including using Detroit's money against them) and hope for the best...full well knowing that the system should damn well be tweaked so a team like Minnesota doesn't have to sit there and bite their nails down to the second knuckle worrying if they'll win a playoff round or end up getting moved to Dallas again...that's too good of a hockey community to be forced into that. They don't need to be worth more than the Lakers (like the Leafs evidently are, according to Forbes...uh huh), but that should not be a team in the red before investing into their team.

They are paying for the "lockout protection" http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_219 ... source=rss ...they are keeping employees on hand, though obviously event staff will suffer, they're trying to do it right...but they're damned if they do, damned if they don't...at least they'll go down swinging...

Washington is just a bad franchise. They invest in deep playoff runs and don't make them. How many playoff series have they won in 35 years? A dozen? They have an owner with deep pockets that can afford to eat a couple million a season...I don't know how the Capitals arena ownership/management is set-up...if Leonsis owns the whole thing, he can profit off the arena to offset the losses of the team. The Caps are a big market team, doing big market things...except winning stuff. I'm fine with that.

interstorm wrote:NHL franchises locking out players to get a cap and then spending the following years circumventing the cap while laying blame at the players is moral hazard. teams shouldn't spend that much - they should operate within a budget (not the cap - but a real financial budget). if most teams did this, dollars spent on players would be lower and NHL salaries would be lower. they have ALL THE TOOLS ALREADY to do what they say they need. if a team wants to make more profit -- sign less high priced players. now i will admit the range between the cap ceiling and floor is probably narrow -- but that is a totally different discussion.


I get it. But at the same time, it's not just owners vs. players. You can point a finger and go, "it was them!" but really that's too broad of a brush. The salary cap wasn't put in place to help the six or eight mega marts out there...it was to help the rest of the teams. So, look at who broke the rules first with contract circumvention and all that...wasn't it Philadelphia? Once that becomes normal behavior - like free agent bidding wars - it becomes a matter of survival.

You just lost your job and an ATM busts open in the middle of a convenience store you happen to be at and twenties are flying out everywhere and people are diving and jumping all around to collect as many as they can...you can stand there and watch them and think how morally wrong it would be for you to grab a twenty, you can wag your finger disapprovingly at those grabbling about...but in the mean time, you're not getting any money...you aren't surviving...eventually, you're gonna have to bend down and touch Andrew Jackson's face...

Many teams do operate on a budget, they do. And you note, quite correctly, that the Upper Limit and Lower Limit are too close for comfort. But eliminating 22 teams from the bidding war doesn't really solve any problems...now you're just hurting both the owners and the players. You have unhealthy franchises that have to spend below the poverty line just to get near breaking even...meanwhile, the on-ice product suffers, they lose a lot, and they become weaker. Atrophy sets in...nothing looks worse for the league than relocation and contraction. From a players standpoint, you have a burgeoning international league in the KHL now - so while their salary cap per team is roughly half of our current set-up, they might set themselves up to keep a lot of European talent within the next decade if things go according to plan. Meanwhile, you have players that now really only have 6 or 8 teams that are spending major bucks, so their market value goes down unnecessarily...so they suffer. Why the players don't want 30 healthy franchises, I can't answer...it's clear they have no forethought, they're just worried about their next paycheck and how many commas are in it...no regard to the health of the league - which as we already saw - benefits them greatly. How about this for make whole: in two of the first three years coming out of the lockout, the players received in excess of 100% of their contract value! If someone is going to try and tell me how that system didn't work for everyone - minus tweaking that needs to be done nearly a decade later - they can kiss my make hole. Itttttt alllllreeadddyyyy wwwooorrrkkkkeedddd...and the owners are willing to meet you half way on the previous contract arrangements...

interstorm wrote:i think the difference between our opinions is that you believe there is a major problem financially with the league. i don't. and like you saying you just don't get "our" position -- i have to admit the same. i look at the above and say to (most) the NHL teams, "what is your problem?"


The players want to try to reverse major portions of the 2005 CBA. De-linkage, like the 1995 CBA. The 1995 CBA was a failure. It failed the owners, it failed the fans, it failed the league. Bobby Holik didn't fail. Everything from the pro-union side focuses on the next paycheck. No care or thought to the league and all that encompasses it. Twice now, as I recall, the keys of the asylum were tossed over to the straight-jackets: the aforementioned 1995-2004 span, where a once-burgeoning league crumbled into a sea of slush...and in the 1970's, when the passenger slammed down on the accelerator citing that the ride was going too safely and smoothly for enjoyment causing premature expansion and even a bastard league of anti-establishment types that were incorrectly credited with forming another professional, major league outfit but just created a mess that the adults had to come and clean up after the kids went to bed...

It's not a coincidence that two of the worst eras since World War II have come with the players calling plays in the huddle...they have no reason and do not think for the greater good...some of these gifted athletes have no ability to think at all, isn't that right, Ian White?
mikey287
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 17,458
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 6:40 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA - @MichaelFarkasHF

Re: Lockout

Postby Sam's Drunk Dog on Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:58 pm

"@CraigCustance: Had 1 exec examine Forbes valuation of his team. Gate receipts were off appx. $6 million; operating income appx $12 mil. They're estimates."
Sam's Drunk Dog
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 19,189
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:31 pm
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

PreviousNext

Return to Pittsburgh Penguins

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Chirpin' Grinder, GeoTank, jcgopens, MalkinIsMyHomeboy, meecrofilm, Penspal, Steve Dave and 19 guests


e-mail