2012 CBA/Lockout talk Part VIII..IT'S OVER!!!!!!

[SerenityRick]

Any reason why the NHLPA is waiting to vote until Friday and Saturday? Waiting for the Euro players to come back?

 

[SerenityRick]

Also, Owner vote was unanimous; 30-0 in favor of the new CBA.

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

saw some numbers in the edmonton sun a couple days ago that might shine some additional light on why the lockout 'makes sense' for the owners. I keep seeing everyone saying they dont understand what this lockout was for...

the numbers i saw {which sadly i cant remember exactly right now} where what the owners lost during the lockout {revenues} and what the players lost {salaries}

basically it was like 34 games worth of salary for the players and added up to like around 700 million dollars or so {sorry i cant remember the exact number} and then the owners money lost was like around a billion or so which is where my point is made.

We are told that a full season of NHL revenues is around 3.3 billion but lost revenues from losing 34 games is only around less then 1/3rd of this. This leaves the league still expecting around 2.3 billion in revenues yet to be realized by playing the remaining 48 games and playoffs.

the players meanwhile will get only a prorated share of their contracts... so basically the owners shut down during their least profitable period of time but will still get around 2/3 of the revenues they were expecting... but will now only pay out around 55% or whatever the number is of player salaries this year.

when you are dealing with a player cost of over 1.65 billion... that 10% or so of less salary paid out will equal like 165 million dollars or so. There are alot of other costs too... travel and arena and whatever... alot of these are fixed costs and maybe got paid even though the leage was shut down... but the overall point im trying to highlight here is that the league shut down the games where they dont make very much revenue in the small markets especially, but do still pay full expenses for. These 34 games lost are the 34 games that make the league unprofitable in the first place.

alot of fans are also saying how this lockout will kill support of the league... and that fans in bad markets wont trust/support the league anymore. BUT remember that this lockout reduced player HRR from 57% to 50% and increased revenue sharing. Since these markets had very little fan/commericial/media support to begin with, even if they were to lose like 10% of their revenue streams as a result of this lockout... that will be MORE then made up for by the benefits they won in this lockout.

They loses might last for a year or two... and then fans memories will fade away and whatever support is in the market to begin with will be realized again... but the benefits will carry on for the next 8-10 years.

So the lockout was definitely worth it to the small market teams.

as for the rich market teams... they will do well no matter what happens, so no one was overly worried about them to begin with.

which really only leaves the midlevel teams as up for debate whether this lockout made sense or not... Ultimately 7% of 3.3 billion revenues equals around 200 million per season divided roughly between 30 partners is around 6 million per team. So these midlevel teams will get around 60 million dollars or more benefit over the course of this CBA {probably alot more if HRR continues to go up}

Whether or not this puts these mid market teams to the good or not... im not sure, but at the very least it will definitely midigate any potential damage they might take with their fan base over the next year or two.

There was a problem that had to be fixed... there was around 10 teams so unstable that it was becoming very difficult to find stable ownership for them. Contraction was becoming a realistic possibility if this problem didnt get addressed. Franchises were starting to be moved... 2 were moved even...

there definitely was a problem. Lets just hope that it got fixed. We as fans might think we know more then the owners do. They are billionares after all with teams of trained lawyers and accountants repersenting them with access to all the real data. All we have is a lot of opinions formed from second hand gossip. So yeah, maybe we are qualified to say that this lockout made no sense at all... but sometimes when we do get some of these numbers to deal with... then sometimes, maybe it does make a little more sense after all?

 

[EverettMike]

saw some numbers in the edmonton sun a couple days ago that might shine some additional light on why the lockout 'makes sense' for the owners. I keep seeing everyone saying they dont understand what this lockout was for...

the numbers i saw {which sadly i cant remember exactly right now} where what the owners lost during the lockout {revenues} and what the players lost {salaries}

basically it was like 34 games worth of salary for the players and added up to like around 700 million dollars or so {sorry i cant remember the exact number} and then the owners money lost was like around a billion or so which is where my point is made.

We are told that a full season of NHL revenues is around 3.3 billion but lost revenues from losing 34 games is only around less then 1/3rd of this. This leaves the league still expecting around 2.3 billion in revenues yet to be realized by playing the remaining 48 games and playoffs.

the players meanwhile will get only a prorated share of their contracts... so basically the owners shut down during their least profitable period of time but will still get around 2/3 of the revenues they were expecting... but will now only pay out around 55% or whatever the number is of player salaries this year.

when you are dealing with a player cost of over 1.65 billion... that 10% or so of less salary paid out will equal like 165 million dollars or so. There are alot of other costs too... travel and arena and whatever... alot of these are fixed costs and maybe got paid even though the leage was shut down... but the overall point im trying to highlight here is that the league shut down the games where they dont make very much revenue in the small markets especially, but do still pay full expenses for. These 34 games lost are the 34 games that make the league unprofitable in the first place.

alot of fans are also saying how this lockout will kill support of the league... and that fans in bad markets wont trust/support the league anymore. BUT remember that this lockout reduced player HRR from 57% to 50% and increased revenue sharing. Since these markets had very little fan/commericial/media support to begin with, even if they were to lose like 10% of their revenue streams as a result of this lockout... that will be MORE then made up for by the benefits they won in this lockout.

They loses might last for a year or two... and then fans memories will fade away and whatever support is in the market to begin with will be realized again... but the benefits will carry on for the next 8-10 years.

So the lockout was definitely worth it to the small market teams.

as for the rich market teams... they will do well no matter what happens, so no one was overly worried about them to begin with.

which really only leaves the midlevel teams as up for debate whether this lockout made sense or not... Ultimately 7% of 3.3 billion revenues equals around 200 million per season divided roughly between 30 partners is around 6 million per team. So these midlevel teams will get around 60 million dollars or more benefit over the course of this CBA {probably alot more if HRR continues to go up}

Whether or not this puts these mid market teams to the good or not... im not sure, but at the very least it will definitely midigate any potential damage they might take with their fan base over the next year or two.

There was a problem that had to be fixed... there was around 10 teams so unstable that it was becoming very difficult to find stable ownership for them. Contraction was becoming a realistic possibility if this problem didnt get addressed. Franchises were starting to be moved... 2 were moved even...

there definitely was a problem. Lets just hope that it got fixed. We as fans might think we know more then the owners do. They are billionares after all with teams of trained lawyers and accountants repersenting them with access to all the real data. All we have is a lot of opinions formed from second hand gossip. So yeah, maybe we are qualified to say that this lockout made no sense at all... but sometimes when we do get some of these numbers to deal with... then sometimes, maybe it does make a little more sense after all?

Lets assume everything you just said is 100% right.

Even then this is a pretty micro-level view if this lockout was "worth it" for the owners.

On a macro-level there is still plenty of time to see what kind of damage they may or may not have done.

 

[Spooner st]

Lets assume everything you just said is 100% right.

Even then this is a pretty micro-level view if this lockout was "worth it" for the owners.

On a macro-level there is still plenty of time to see what kind of damage they may or may not have done.

The owners lost this one, they give to much and it will cost them in a not to distant future.

 

[Artemis]

An interesting look at the media scene covering the talks:

At 8:17 p.m., Pierre LeBrun tweeted a picture in which his colleague Dreger looked like a ghost. LeBrun's followers took #dregerface, as it became known, and pasted it onto the Ikea Monkey and Lee Harvey Oswald's murder scene. When #dregerface was grafted onto a "Gangnam Style" video, Bruce Arthur let out the highest and loudest laugh I have ever heard a human being utter.

That was the extent of the fun. The reporters sat on the 13th floor, without a peep of news, for five hours. There was little to report and leaving was out of the question. Finally, after 1 a.m., there was a stir. "Someone's coming!" a TV producer shouted. Fehr stepped in front of the black shroud. He seemed annoyed and said he had nothing much to say. The black shroud was taken down. Gary Bettman appeared. He was in a jollier mood than Fehr, proving that in the meta-theater of the lockout, each actor was also the other's understudy. "I'm sorry," Bettman told us, "that you had to wait so long for so little news." It was insincere, but it was nice of him to lie.

When Bettman left the podium around 1:15, the NHL's hospitality came to an abrupt end. An official said we had 15 minutes to clear out of the building.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8821249/the-media-nhl-lockout

 

[robert terwilliger]

lebrun is a good follow on twitter. seems like a nice guy.

 

[Kaoz*]

Lets assume everything you just said is 100% right.

Even then this is a pretty micro-level view if this lockout was "worth it" for the owners.

On a macro-level there is still plenty of time to see what kind of damage they may or may not have done.

Making the sport viable for teams in non traditional market is the big picture. Not just viable, but getting them all under a system where teams like Phoenix, Anaheim, Florida, etc... can all spend minimal amounts of money and still be competitive. Competitive hockey teams make hockey more popular in those areas. It's common sense.

The owners took a big step in getting the game one step closer to that. First, obviously getting the league to a 50/50 revenue split is a step in the right direction. Then they also eliminated the small market killing front loaded contracts. Not to mention now being able to retain a portion of a traded players salary and cap hit.

Those three things alone are absolutely huge for those teams in non traditional markets. Would it have been better for the league if they could have gotten the 50/50 split without all that make whole money? Sure. Would it have alleviated more of the issues plaguing non traditional teams if they league had of gotten stricter variance and shorter contract lengths. Without a doubt. The PA roadblocked that though in favor of short term personal gains.

In the end though, those concessions are now in the CBA and they all help. Not to mention when the next bargaining session rolls around it will be a lot easier to adjust those concessions to be more in line with what the NHL actually wanted then it would be to not have them in there at all, and have to fight for their inclusion.

Will the sport suffer... probably not. They lost a season last time and revenues sky rocketed directly after. Making the on ice product better dictates the popularity of the sport and the new CBA should do exactly that.

 

[Spooner st]

How the NHL’s salary cap could hit $90-million

A must read.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...lary-cap-could-hit-90-million/article7029575/

If you’re the Florida Panthers or New York Islanders, who had trouble keeping pace with the floor under the last agreement when it went over $48-million, how will you feel about one that nears $60-million before the league can opt out of this agreement?

 

[Kaoz*]

A must read.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...lary-cap-could-hit-90-million/article7029575/

The issue with the cap growing the way it had before was that it was largely due to the strengthening Canadian dollar. The gain of a few teams offset the losses of the many. Can't see that happening again, Toronto has to be pretty close to being maxed out in terms of earning power.

I think the only way we see another big jump in revenues such as the one we saw during the last CBA is if the teams who were losing money start to make it. If that's the case rising cap costs should be less of a concern for them.

 

[Spooner st]

The issue with the cap growing the way it had before was that it was largely due to the strengthening Canadian dollar. The gain of a few teams offset the losses of the many. Can't see that happening again, Toronto has to be pretty close to being maxed out in terms of earning power.

I think the only way we see another big jump in revenues such as the one we saw during the last CBA is if the teams who were losing money start to make it. If that's the case rising cap costs should be less of a concern for them.

The way i see it, Those teams will keep on losing money,widening the gap between the top teams and bottom feeders and the parity slowly will disappear.

 

[Kaoz*]

The way i see it, Those teams will keep on losing money,widening the gap between the top teams and bottom feeders and the parity slowly will disappear.

It's possible, I just can't see a team like Toronto raising ticket prices even more. Especially with that team and their lack of clear direction.

Also, does that article say the ceiling can't drop below 64.3 in any year of the CBA? I hadn't seen that before, is that accurate?

 

[Spooner st]

It's possible, I just can't see a team like Toronto raising ticket prices even more. Especially with that team and their lack of clear direction.

Also, does that article say the ceiling can't drop below 64.3 in any year of the CBA? I hadn't seen that before, is that accurate?

Yes it is... and wait till we have all the details of the new CBA, bad deal for the NHL as a whole.

 

[Neely08]

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

The owners lost this one, they give to much and it will cost them in a not to distant future.

i can never keep track of who was pro owner... who was pro union... who was against both... so sorry if im not sure what side of the fence you are on.

i am curious though about your position of who 'lost' here. If you say the owners lost then are you saying the lockout was justified? That... they needed to get more?

they got alot... but you say they still lost. I personally agree with you. I think the players are still getting way way way too much. Personally speaking...

but then again im not a billionare. billionares spend truck loads of overpayment on all sorts of things i personally would never ever ever spend it on. they give truckloads to politics... to charity... to shaky investments... to whatever...

so if these billionares are happy to commit 50% of revenues {not profits} to a cba deal then whatever... thats their decesion.

but if you truely believe they 'LOST' this deal then you must also feel the lockout was justified right?

 

[Spooner st]

i can never keep track of who was pro owner... who was pro union... who was against both... so sorry if im not sure what side of the fence you are on.

i am curious though about your position of who 'lost' here. If you say the owners lost then are you saying the lockout was justified? That... they needed to get more?

they got alot... but you say they still lost. I personally agree with you. I think the players are still getting way way way too much. Personally speaking...

but then again im not a billionare. billionares spend truck loads of overpayment on all sorts of things i personally would never ever ever spend it on. they give truckloads to politics... to charity... to shaky investments... to whatever...

so if these billionares are happy to commit 50% of revenues {not profits} to a cba deal then whatever... thats their decesion.

but if you truely believe they 'LOST' this deal then you must also feel the lockout was justified right?

I love the game... and i want to see it being successful, like everything we love we want the best.

The players have more money then what they need.

The NHL gave to much, the owners put to much pression on Bettman and what Bettman did was to put a band aid on top of an infected wound.

give it a few years and its gone start to bleed.