Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * * * 3 votes

Cory Schneider says players not panicking over NHL offer


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
63 replies to this topic

#61 disisdayear

disisdayear

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 528 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 18 July 2012 - 12:11 AM

I did a little number crunching and these are loose numbers that I've come out with...

In 2011-2012, the teams spent 91% of the allowable cap (not including LTIR payments, buy-outs, and one and two-way contracts in the minors). Let's say these three things are the burden that each owner must carry...say, the cost of doing business.

The owners spent a total of $1.77 billion on cap salaries of the allowable $1.94 billion. So that means that the total "hockey revenues" in 2011-2012 season was in the neighbourhood of $3.4 billion, leaving the owners share at a minimum of $1.46 billion.

Since the owners spent "only" $1.77 billion on cap salaries, that means they kept $1.63 billion or 48% of the revenues, and players received 52% of the revenues. If all things were equal and there was "revenue sharing" (which to some degree exists in the NHL by way of equalization payments to lower revenue generating teams), each franchise has slightly more than $50 million for operating expenses, including LTIR payments (or insurance premiums on LTIR payments), minor league contracts, buy-outs, management contracts, coaching contracts, scouts, administrative staff, travel, up keep of facilities (for franchises that own their own building), etc., etc.

At the end of the day, the owners probably don't make much money on a year-to-year basis. Where they make the money is the equity that builds up in the ownership of the franchise...essentially for the owners, owning the franchise is like having a job that pays for the mortgage. With this in mind, you can see why so many owners fail, especially if they were leveraged to the max when purchasing a franchise.

Let's assume that the owners are honest about hockey related revenues that they are disclosing to the players association...as well, let's assume that the operating budget for each team is in the neighbourhood of $50 million (for me, this is a huge assumption because I have no clue what this number would be). If this is the case, the first pitch made by the owners as it relates to revenue sharing needs some rethinking...if I was an arbitrator, I would be inclined to give the players about 52% and the owners 48%, knowing full well that only 10% to 20% of the owners will spend the entire cap on any given year.

There's a lot of assumptions being made on my part, so please accept this for what it is...just the musings of a bored hockey fan in July.

#62 disisdayear

disisdayear

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 528 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 18 July 2012 - 12:32 AM

39million to 70million in the cap? Has the NHL really gotten better players? IMO they should reduce the cap and no contract's should allow a player to be paid more than $6-7M, per year. $6M is pretty decent but a $7, $8, $9M paycheck to take hits, deliver hits, shoot a puck, etc. is too much. That in my view is something I am hating about the league, the greed of the players.

Players like Linden, Sakic, Doan, Burrows, etc. have taken less money in the past for the love of their respective teams. Thats what the NHL needs, more classy, not all about the money, type of players.


Though I agree that NHL salaries have escalated, by professional sport standards, they are still RELATIVELY reasonable.

But the players can't be singularly responsible for this. I really think that the CBA is a mechanism to protect the owners and general managers from themselves. Bettman is actually put in a bad spot by the owners that he represents...he and Daly goes out to negotiate the best possible deal for the ownership group and once this is done (to varying degrees of success), his own membership does all it can to undermine and circumvent the tenets of the CBA to acquire player assets at all costs (don't get me wrong, I still think Bettman is an NBA-castoff mental midget who know diddly squat about hockey, but I think he's doing a relatively good job of protecting the owners from themselves).

Everyone is greedy and we live in the age of short term gratification, so I personally can't begrudge players nor the owners for wanting to get the best deal they can for themselves. Let's hope that the calm and thoughtful approach being demonstrated by Schneider will allow for a deal to get done.

#63 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,160 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 18 July 2012 - 01:26 AM

1.At the end of the day, the owners probably don't make much money on a year-to-year basis. Where they make the money is the equity that builds up in the ownership of the franchise...essentially for the owners, owning the franchise is like having a job that pays for the mortgage. With this in mind, you can see why so many owners fail, especially if they were leveraged to the max when purchasing a franchise.

2.Let's assume that the owners are honest about hockey related revenues that they are disclosing to the players association......

3.There's a lot of assumptions being made on my part, so please accept this for what it is...just the musings of a bored hockey fan in July.


I liked your post and agree with #1 and have to support your thoughts on #3.

I doubt the owners can be or will ever be honest about their revenues and will continue to hide,obfuscate and refuse an open financial book on their financial empires.We are talking about a billionaire club and those boys use every trick in the book and in most instances make up the book as they go along.
That is why the salaries are a mess and the owners will always need policing.Where I strongly protest is that there is no mechanism to punish owners for circumventing their own rules and bringing the game to a standstill every few years.
The owners and their GM minions are where the problems-and solutions- lay.

Edited by nuck nit, 18 July 2012 - 01:48 AM.


#64 enterin

enterin

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 984 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 07

Posted 18 July 2012 - 07:16 AM

Addiction to smoking, alcohol and to sports make certain people rich not names or sides.
My remedy stop playing in their sandbox, for example stop watching games, stop going too games your feeding their wealth and greedyness
Do u think people would do this no they keep feeding the rich and the poor suffer.

MOST PEOPLE CAN NOT BRING THEIR FAMILY TO A GAME WHY PRICES ARE TOO HIGH. I WOULD LIKE THE 80S TO RETURN WHEN IT WAS HARd FILL THE COLLISEUM THAT WOULD MAKE THEM HUMBLE..

I LOVE HOCKEY but not at theexpense of my family living a decent life a little frustrating as it would begreat to a hockey game but it wont happen here....tv or nothing ...if they lock out it would not hurt me one bit..i would learn to live with out and so would u
Thats all enjoy your summer holidays it doesnt sound likemost are on cdc

Cheers




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.