Confirmed with Link: Lockout continues Part V - Hockey cancelled till January 14th

[4evaBlue]

Did parity on the ice result in parity in revenues? It didn't seem like this new world order resulted in healthier franchises at all.

I don't have the revenue trends for each franchise since the salary cap was introduced. I do know that the cap has increased by 65% since the last lockout, and current floor is more than the max cap was right after lockout. Inflation is certainly a factor, but not to that degree. NHL owners are paying their players better than they ever have before.







Sources are hyperlinked to images.

I'm no business major, but those figures look like a financially improving league to me. Whether that growth is a result of the increased parity, though, I don't think anyone can tell.

 

[4evaBlue]

Welcome to the NHLPA and Fehr's battle and goals of this new CBA.



Good thing Fehr gives a crap about what happens to the league after the lockout, and fought and won a 53% increase in revenue sharing to attempt to get 30 healthy teams.

I hope you didn't believe this is what Bettman and Owners lockout is all about.

Both the league and the PA want to increase revenue sharing, the debate is where the $$ should come from. The PA wants the top 6 or so most profitable teams to fork over 1/3 of their current profits (on top of what they already share) to support the struggling teams.

I'm not saying I don't agree with the notion, but I'm not overly surprised that the owners involved aren't too eager to jump on that opportunity. Maybe the players can set an example for the owners, and have the Crosby's of the league sharing 1/3rd of their salary with the less fortunate players.

Either way, the one of the underlying issues is that the non-profitable teams are having a hard time keeping up with the ever rising cap space, and require more and more shared revenue to stay afloat. This of course results in the profitable teams having to increase their revenues (guess who pays for this) to maintain status quo. The end result is that the poor teams stay just as poor. It's a viscous cycle that needs to stop.

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime"

Fehr is like Robin Hood, he fights for his players and protects their 50% share of HRR and then negotiates increase revenue sharing for the poorer small market NHL teams by robbing from the rich owners and giving to the poor all within the Owners 50% share of HRR as opposed to the players being responsible to cover those costs.

Didn't realize the league had a 50-50 HRR share going.

Tell me, if Fehr is such a Robin Hood, what is he doing specifically for the little guys (other than the HRR%, which effects every player the same). Contract length? Variance? CBA term length?

Those rich owners did not get rich from "robbing the players", and it seems to me that a lot of those owners are actually wasting their own money to try to keep their franchises afloat. I don't feel too bad for them, though, since chances are, they didn't get filthy rich without price gouging others (Rogers/Bell internet/cable bills , etc), just trying to deflate the ridiculous Robin Hood notion.

 

[4evaBlue]

So if you were him, you'd have taken the first deal they offered?

You never take the first offer, no matter what. It's a golden rule of negotiations.

 

[WhatASaveDave]

They should just make the new CBA 8 years long. The Nhlpa wants 6-8 and the NHL wants 8-10

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

Both the league and the PA want to increase revenue sharing, the debate is where the $$ should come from. The PA wants the top 6 or so most profitable teams to fork over 1/3 of their current profits (on top of what they already share) to support the struggling teams.

I'm not saying I don't agree with the notion, but I'm not overly surprised that the owners involved aren't too eager to jump on that opportunity. Maybe the players can set an example for the owners, and have the Crosby's of the league sharing 1/3rd of their salary with the less fortunate players.

Either way, the one of the underlying issues is that the non-profitable teams are having a hard time keeping up with the ever rising cap space, and require more and more shared revenue to stay afloat. This of course results in the profitable teams having to increase their revenues (guess who pays for this) to maintain status quo. The end result is that the poor teams stay just as poor. It's a viscous cycle that needs to stop.

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime"



Didn't realize the league had a 50-50 HRR share going.

Tell me, if Fehr is such a Robin Hood, what is he doing specifically for the little guys (other than the HRR%, which effects every player the same). Contract length? Variance? CBA term length?

Those rich owners did not get rich from "robbing the players", and it seems to me that a lot of those owners are actually wasting their own money to try to keep their franchises afloat. I don't feel too bad for them, though, since chances are, they didn't get filthy rich without price gouging others (Rogers/Bell internet/cable bills , etc), just trying to deflate the ridiculous Robin Hood notion.

Now I'm intrigued.....

 

[ULF_55]

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime"

Shouldn't that fisherman have access to water?

Phoenix doesn't have hockey fans, and have to price their tickets so low that when they do have 1/3 empty arena's their nets are still empty.

Crosby is the product not the owners billions. The players bring in the money, not the owners.

 

[Razz]

Shouldn't that fisherman have access to water?

Phoenix doesn't have hockey fans, and have to price their tickets so low that when they do have 1/3 empty arena's their nets are still empty.

Crosby is the product not the owners billions. The players bring in the money, not the owners.

Without the NHL, the players would have no money to bring. Your argument is ridiculous.

 

[ULF_55]

Without the NHL, the players would have no money to bring. Your argument is ridiculous.

NHL is a brand name.

There is much more to hockey than just the NHL.

Your opinion on hockey is very limited.

 

[KuleminFan41]

You never take the first offer, no matter what. It's a golden rule of negotiations.

So then the second deal you would have gladly taken?

 

[ULF_55]

So then the second deal you would have gladly taken?

NHL should have responded to the NHLPA's last offer with a counter offer if they are interested in coming to an agreement.

 

[Anthrax442]

NHL should have responded to the NHLPA's last offer with a counter offer if they are interested in coming to an agreement.

No, The PA should have had that deal signed and not play head games again.

 

[ULF_55]

No, The PA should have had that deal signed and not play head games again.

Why?

This isn't 18th. century England where you have to do what thy lord and master commands.

Players aren't getting paid right now, they don't have to do anything to please the owners, you or I.

To be fair, if the Leafs had a decent team I might feel differently, but with the calibre of players on the Leafs if they tore up all the contracts and started a new league wouldn't bother me in the least.

 

[Anthrax442]

Why?

This isn't 18th. century England where you have to do what thy lord and master commands.

Players aren't getting paid right now, they don't have to do anything to please the owners, you or I.

Because they are not slave labour. The lowest paid player gets 10 times what an average person makes, and works way less for it. I don't say they should cut their pay by 90%, but the owners are the ones who put all of their money on the line.

One thing nobody mentions, the players are coddled, they get the best treatment, the best travel, best food, best equipment. Enough. If the league needs to be healthy, the players can give up something short term.

This is a league that doesn't generate the same number in US, it is #4 in most markets, they can't expect to be paid like basketball or baseball players.

I've been in situation, when you write out cheques to employees, fully knowing that most or some of it comes out of your pocket, when your lower paid part time employee makes more money than you, it is not a pretty feeling. Especially when you cannot do anything about it. So a union for a bunch of millionaires makes me laugh.

 

[ULF_55]

Because they are not slave labour. The lowest paid player gets 10 times what an average person makes, and works way less for it. I don't say they should cut their pay by 90%, but the owners are the ones who put all of their money on the line.

One thing nobody mentions, the players are coddled, they get the best treatment, the best travel, best food, best equipment. Enough. If the league needs to be healthy, the players can give up something short term.

This is a league that doesn't generate the same number in US, it is #4 in most markets, they can't expect to be paid like basketball or baseball players.

I've been in situation, when you write out cheques to employees, fully knowing that most or some of it comes out of your pocket, when your lower paid part time employee makes more money than you, it is not a pretty feeling. Especially when you cannot do anything about it. So a union for a bunch of millionaires makes me laugh.

I've been in situations when I took that cheque to the bank it was worthless.

If you look at the movement both sides have made, they are so close to an agreement, that when one side just has a temper tantrum (exactly what Bettman did) and says I'm taking my puck and going home it isn't productive.

Oh, and it is the fans who are paying the freight.

Losing money? We are talking about accounting here, and accounting that is not available for the public to audit. How much is the entire league making? I don't mean to cherry pick teams to show a loss. How much is the net for the entire league?

 

[Anthrax442]

I've been in situations when I took that cheque to the bank it was worthless.

If you look at the movement both sides have made, they are so close to an agreement, that when one side just has a temper tantrum (exactly what Bettman did) and says I'm taking my puck and going home it isn't productive.

Oh, and it is the fans who are paying the freight.

Losing money? We are talking about accounting here, and accounting that is not available for the public to audit. How much is the entire league making? I don't mean to cherry pick teams to show a loss. How much is the net for the entire league?

There are enough sources that have shown that MOST of the teams in the league are oozing money. In this case any business would make an adjustment - would let a couple of employees go, reduce hours, close down a portion of the operations, something to fix their situation. The league, as any private business should be able to make adjustments and not be held hostage by it's product. Especially when 100% of the players make their money and only 30% of the league does.

 

[Smif]

There are enough sources that have shown that MOST of the teams in the league are oozing money. In this case any business would make an adjustment - would let a couple of employees go, reduce hours, close down a portion of the operations, something to fix their situation. The league, as any private business should be able to make adjustments and not be held hostage by it's product. Especially when 100% of the players make their money and only 30% of the league does.

I blame the owners for voting 29-0 for not moving the Phoenix Coyotes out of there long ago. Don't blame the employees for the owners decisions to open businesses in obvious terrible locations. How did Bettman convince someone (a savvy businessman at that) it was a good idea to start a hockey franchise in the desert?

 

[Christ]

NHL is a brand name.

There is much more to hockey than just the NHL.

Your opinion on hockey is very limited.

Agreed. This is something that for whatever reason the NHL owners are not taking into consideration during these negociations. Unlike the last lockout, the NHL is no longer the only established league out there. Yes the NHL may be the old and trusted brand, but if they continue to alienate both the players and their respective fanbases, other options are becomming available.

The KHL has been the biggest winner of the lockout. They have taken advantage of the situation to attract a large number of NHL stars to their league. Many of our European players are able to play closer to home or even in some cases for hometown teams. Many NHL players may actually prefer playing in that league if given the choice...Malkin for instance has been quoted as saying that he does not even miss the NHL. Even Crosby, the NHL's posterboy, is making noise that he wants to head overseas.

The owners need to consider that players are the product that they are selling. Without the players, the NHL is nothing. If you want to bill youself as the best league in the world then you need to keep these players playing in your league. If the players are not happy, the NHL risks having them take off for greener pastures. Right now the NHL is the greenest pasture but this may not always be the case.

 

[Mess]

So then the second deal you would have gladly taken?

The longer Fehr and PA hold out the better the deal gets for them in terms of less giveback.

If the Owners wouldn't have started the negotiating process at such a ridiculous position then we might be further along, but we (the fans) have had to suffer through their greed and nonsense, without hockey until they came to their senses.

Unlike Bettman and the Owners the PA began their bargaining position from the Old existing CBA as its starting point and coming down from there.

 

[4evaBlue]

Shouldn't that fisherman have access to water?

Phoenix doesn't have hockey fans, and have to price their tickets so low that when they do have 1/3 empty arena's their nets are still empty.

Crosby is the product not the owners billions. The players bring in the money, not the owners.

That actually had me for real. You're right, the middle of the desert isn't necessarily the best fishing spot, but Bettman is tasked with a pretty though job of trying to continuously expand the game, and make hockey an North American sport, instead of a Canadian one. Having said that, I don't necessarily agree with the expansion strategies.

I believe you need to fix your home base before you think about expanding, and make sure you have a very solid product before you go anywhere. Even the Canadian teams are hardly profitable. The Leafs' and Habs' ticket price gouging is the only reason the profitable teams can stay profitable, anywhere else where they have reasonable ticket prices, the profits are marginal (~$10M).

If the franchises can't even thrive where they're supposed to (in Canada), either the revenue needs to be increased (HRR share / ticket price increases), and/or operating expenses need to be cut.

It's the owner's investments that bring the money. That includes the players, the arenas, the marketing / TV deals, and whatever else their $120M per season pays for.

 

[4evaBlue]

I blame the owners for voting 29-0 for not moving the Phoenix Coyotes out of there long ago. Don't blame the employees for the owners decisions to open businesses in obvious terrible locations. How did Bettman convince someone (a savvy businessman at that) it was a good idea to start a hockey franchise in the desert?

Even in the better locales (Canada), the best you can expect is to break even. And the Yotes are hardly the only team in a rough shape financially.

 

[Budsfan]

Both the league and the PA want to increase revenue sharing, the debate is where the $$ should come from. The PA wants the top 6 or so most profitable teams to fork over 1/3 of their current profits (on top of what they already share) to support the struggling teams.

I'm not saying I don't agree with the notion, but I'm not overly surprised that the owners involved aren't too eager to jump on that opportunity. Maybe the players can set an example for the owners, and have the Crosby's of the league sharing 1/3rd of their salary with the less fortunate players.

Either way, the one of the underlying issues is that the non-profitable teams are having a hard time keeping up with the ever rising cap space, and require more and more shared revenue to stay afloat. This of course results in the profitable teams having to increase their revenues (guess who pays for this) to maintain status quo. The end result is that the poor teams stay just as poor. It's a viscous cycle that needs to stop.

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime"



Didn't realize the league had a 50-50 HRR share going.

Tell me, if Fehr is such a Robin Hood, what is he doing specifically for the little guys (other than the HRR%, which effects every player the same). Contract length? Variance? CBA term length?

Those rich owners did not get rich from "robbing the players", and it seems to me that a lot of those owners are actually wasting their own money to try to keep their franchises afloat. I don't feel too bad for them, though, since chances are, they didn't get filthy rich without price gouging others (Rogers/Bell internet/cable bills , etc), just trying to deflate the ridiculous Robin Hood notion.

Good post and on the money.

When both the league and the PA want to increase revenue sharing, how do they accomplish this, they raise ticket prices but they can only do this in the cities like Toronto, Montreal and New York, so as I stated before Leaf fans, open your wallets a little further and be prepared to fork out more.

To be truthful going to the ACC to watch a game for me, has been more than just the cost of tickets however it is a big factor, the others are my health and where I now live but for those of you that could see a game at the ACC, it is getting very pricey but there is no better place to be, when the Leafs are playing.

This supporting teams that have been on the dole since their inception, this is not acceptable and the product on the ice has been so watered down, for quite some time and a lot of those players, some of whom should be lifetime AHL'ers, can be re-signed in that capacity, really good players will always be in demand and will sign with other teams.

The League is in trouble and throwing our money at the situation, is not going to improve it and because costs esculate, it will be an on going problem, so in my opinion what has to happen is... Less Teams, Less Players, Limited Contract Length (with no cap circumvention), Strict Cap and Fair Ticket Prices.

Oh! and as a side bar does anyone think, the reason the Teachers Pension Fund sold it's share of MLSE, was because they really couldn't take the Owners side, in this Lockout and negotiations because of what and who they are?

 

[Smif]

Even in the better locales (Canada), the best you can expect is to break even. And the Yotes are hardly the only team in a rough shape financially.

If you break even and have a bad year I think I would consider that a successful franchise. Edmonton and Calgary break even and don't make the playoffs, but when they do make the playoffs all that extra revenue is pure profit. You'll see an obvious trend in franchises losing money with their locations.

 

[Mess]

NHL should have responded to the NHLPA's last offer with a counter offer if they are interested in coming to an agreement.

Bettman doesn't know how to negotiate a completed deal without major lose of games and cancelled seasons, through Owner lockouts and player lost wages.

He acts like a spoiled little only child, with his take it or leave it offers Yes or No mandates. Then when he doesn't get his way by attempting to force is will on the PA, he pouts and takes his puck and goes home and talks stop. The PA then has to get the Owners back to the table so a deal can eventually be completed.

If it weren't so sad, it would be humerous watching him squirm and nearly pop a blood vessel as he takes the podium for his speeches complaining about how big bad Donald Fehr is not playing fair, and wants to negotiate the points of disagreement rather than simply take what he is offered AS IS.

 

[ryno23]

I played a game last night in our men's over 40 division and not on person even mentioned the NHL and lockout. I wonder if the apathy for the league lockout is really going to be different then the last one where you understood why the owners locked out the players for a Cap.

Now I think some are just fed up and sure may come back but not at the same level of fanship

 

[4evaBlue]

If you break even and have a bad year I think I would consider that a successful franchise. Edmonton and Calgary break even and don't make the playoffs, but when they do make the playoffs all that extra revenue is pure profit. You'll see an obvious trend in franchises losing money with their locations.

Unless they become contenders and start consistently making deep playoff runs, getting trounced in the first round doesn't generate all that much revenue (just ask the Sens). You also can't rely on playoffs being the determining factor of profitability. Only half of the teams make the playoffs any given year. Playoff revenue should be the icing on the cake for the owners, for making the right decisions.