Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Do the NHLPA demands make sense?


This topic has been archived.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

#1 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,124 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 14 September 2012 - 08:56 AM

It appears that the NHLPA is not prepared to reduce their $1.8 billion take from NHL revenue. They are forecasting revenue growth of 7% per year through the life of the proposed new CBA. Their offer was to take less of that new sales growth.

My simple math tells me that NHL franchises are bringing in about $100 - $110 million per year of which the players get a max of $70 million. It is claimed that about half the franchises do not make the average. The NHL has taken money from the more affluent clubs and given subsidies to the poorer ones. The NHLPA does not seem to question the accuracies of these numbers.

After the players take their cut the teams must pay for all other expenses of running their orgs. Staff and minor league salaries, equipment, travel and venue costs. Whatever is left after expenses is their return on investment (ROI). I suspect that many clubs are showing a negative return even those who are writing revenue sharing cheques. The CBA does not guarantee a ROI for these owners. My thought is that teams operating in the black are not prepared to subsidize the losing franchises to a level that makes them profitable. That was what the NHLPA wanted them to do by suggesting a larger fund to do that exact thing. In essence it was not much of a conciliation as that fund would pay players contracts anyway.

One could ask what a fair ROI would be for a franchise owner. For the sake of argument if 10% was agreed on most clubs would be looking for approximately $30 million per year. Even the lowly Yotes are being sold at $170 million. No matter how you add the numbers it doesn't work for ownership. I do not expect any last minute agreement unless the players make serious concessions. I heard a player yesterday talking about owners 'bullying and being hardliners'. IMHO this reeks of immaturity. The numbers should speak for themselves. If the NHL and NHLPA agree with the revenue numbers then agreement should be as simple as writing a budget with a ROI cost included in the costs.

#2 Onions

Onions

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 450 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 11

Posted 14 September 2012 - 09:12 AM

It appears that the NHLPA is not prepared to reduce their $1.8 billion take from NHL revenue. They are forecasting revenue growth of 7% per year through the life of the proposed new CBA. Their offer was to take less of that new sales growth.

My simple math tells me that NHL franchises are bringing in about $100 - $110 million per year of which the players get a max of $70 million. It is claimed that about half the franchises do not make the average. The NHL has taken money from the more affluent clubs and given subsidies to the poorer ones. The NHLPA does not seem to question the accuracies of these numbers.

After the players take their cut the teams must pay for all other expenses of running their orgs. Staff and minor league salaries, equipment, travel and venue costs. Whatever is left after expenses is their return on investment (ROI). I suspect that many clubs are showing a negative return even those who are writing revenue sharing cheques. The CBA does not guarantee a ROI for these owners. My thought is that teams operating in the black are not prepared to subsidize the losing franchises to a level that makes them profitable. That was what the NHLPA wanted them to do by suggesting a larger fund to do that exact thing. In essence it was not much of a conciliation as that fund would pay players contracts anyway.

One could ask what a fair ROI would be for a franchise owner. For the sake of argument if 10% was agreed on most clubs would be looking for approximately $30 million per year. Even the lowly Yotes are being sold at $170 million. No matter how you add the numbers it doesn't work for ownership. I do not expect any last minute agreement unless the players make serious concessions. I heard a player yesterday talking about owners 'bullying and being hardliners'. IMHO this reeks of immaturity. The numbers should speak for themselves. If the NHL and NHLPA agree with the revenue numbers then agreement should be as simple as writing a budget with a ROI cost included in the costs.


they play hockey, not do math for a living. and that is the problem.
Posted ImagePosted Image

#3 enterin

enterin

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,051 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 07

Posted 14 September 2012 - 10:16 AM

It appears that the NHLPA is not prepared to reduce their $1.8 billion take from NHL revenue. They are forecasting revenue growth of 7% per year through the life of the proposed new CBA. Their offer was to take less of that new sales growth.

My simple math tells me that NHL franchises are bringing in about $100 - $110 million per year of which the players get a max of $70 million. It is claimed that about half the franchises do not make the average. The NHL has taken money from the more affluent clubs and given subsidies to the poorer ones. The NHLPA does not seem to question the accuracies of these numbers.

After the players take their cut the teams must pay for all other expenses of running their orgs. Staff and minor league salaries, equipment, travel and venue costs. Whatever is left after expenses is their return on investment (ROI). I suspect that many clubs are showing a negative return even those who are writing revenue sharing cheques. The CBA does not guarantee a ROI for these owners. My thought is that teams operating in the black are not prepared to subsidize the losing franchises to a level that makes them profitable. That was what the NHLPA wanted them to do by suggesting a larger fund to do that exact thing. In essence it was not much of a conciliation as that fund would pay players contracts anyway.

One could ask what a fair ROI would be for a franchise owner. For the sake of argument if 10% was agreed on most clubs would be looking for approximately $30 million per year. Even the lowly Yotes are being sold at $170 million. No matter how you add the numbers it doesn't work for ownership. I do not expect any last minute agreement unless the players make serious concessions. I heard a player yesterday talking about owners 'bullying and being hardliners'. IMHO this reeks of immaturity. The numbers should speak for themselves. If the NHL and NHLPA agree with the revenue numbers then agreement should be as simple as writing a budget with a ROI cost included in the costs.


Maybe We should all cut our paychecks its all the same just at a different level, you nor anybody else would like it period.

Tell the owners we want to cut the ticket prices so we can make it affordable so we(fans) can bring our families to games.

Nope I dont think so supply and demand baby


Owner books should be transparent the NHLPA should know exact numbers but as far as I know we all have to take them at thier word

An outside agency should be checking the NHL 's books then go from there...fair

But the owners are still giving out huge contracts this really makes me laugh!!

Bettman was bullying thats funny he is a rat they screwed up last time so they say now they have to make it right..


bottom line owners are the ones paying the players these god awful contracts then they turn around and cry poverty come on...

Owners should accept the slow roll back that the players introduced maybe ask for more % instead of 1.5% make it 2% see what the players say...

who knows they might say yes but know Bettman has to put the pressure on by bullying

Whats next the NHL owners will want players to play for free then what ....Hope we are out for a year or 2 ? this all make s me sick I have a lot of games to watch anyways.

I also hope that the players go to the khl maybe khl will be televised on tv then what now the competition is on yeah baby yeah..

see you all in two years maybe

#4 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 14 September 2012 - 10:17 AM

The players expecting to make more than the very people who OWN the teams and OWN the Stanley Cup have been living in a fantasy land.

The Owners got their hard cap, but gave up virtually every other concession including having the UFA drop from 30 to 27 or even 26 in some cases.

57% of the revenue to the players in so generous that now the NHL cant take it anymore. Think about all the guys playing in this league making literally millions of dollars who in my opinion arent even world class players.

Cmon. Even at 50 grand a year it takes us average folks 20 years to make a million bucks.

I think the NHL fans deserve to see the BEST players, but lets not forget that the players come and go. Generations of players pass right on through the NHL . The average career is 6 years. We fans can hang around for 60 or 70 years voting for various teams.

The owners own the league. We watch because the players are the best in the world. Its true that there is a dual relationship between the players and owners to both put out the best product and market it the best way to us fans.

But lets be honest, the league can BOOT these players out into the street, daring them to start up another WHA.

The only penalty the owners would pay is a watered down mediocre players from the minors and europe coming to fill the NHL uniforms for a year or two.

There would still be NHL hockey, and the league would certainly lose its NBC contract but it still wouldnt lose its CBC contract.

Lets face it, the NHL players would be in the minors or in europe getting a year older, not playing for the stanley cup.; They would then watch new guys get out of junior and join the NHL .

The NHL would allow the new players to form another union but one that is willing to have reasonable demands. It would not be long until the best players would again be in the NHL and all the old NHLPA union players would be either too old to play or put their tail between their legs and went back to the NHL.

So this is why Bettman knows he can lock them out. The owners are fed up with these insane contracts and I bet they are willing to fire them all .

Hire new guys to play for the teams.
Posted Image

#5 enterin

enterin

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,051 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 07

Posted 14 September 2012 - 10:27 AM

The players expecting to make more than the very people who OWN the teams and OWN the Stanley Cup have been living in a fantasy land.

The Owners got their hard cap, but gave up virtually every other concession including having the UFA drop from 30 to 27 or even 26 in some cases.

57% of the revenue to the players in so generous that now the NHL cant take it anymore. Think about all the guys playing in this league making literally millions of dollars who in my opinion arent even world class players.

Cmon. Even at 50 grand a year it takes us average folks 20 years to make a million bucks.

I think the NHL fans deserve to see the BEST players, but lets not forget that the players come and go. Generations of players pass right on through the NHL . The average career is 6 years. We fans can hang around for 60 or 70 years voting for various teams.

The owners own the league. We watch because the players are the best in the world. Its true that there is a dual relationship between the players and owners to both put out the best product and market it the best way to us fans.

But lets be honest, the league can BOOT these players out into the street, daring them to start up another WHA.

The only penalty the owners would pay is a watered down mediocre players from the minors and europe coming to fill the NHL uniforms for a year or two.

There would still be NHL hockey, and the league would certainly lose its NBC contract but it still wouldnt lose its CBC contract.

Lets face it, the NHL players would be in the minors or in europe getting a year older, not playing for the stanley cup.; They would then watch new guys get out of junior and join the NHL .

The NHL would allow the new players to form another union but one that is willing to have reasonable demands. It would not be long until the best players would again be in the NHL and all the old NHLPA union players would be either too old to play or put their tail between their legs and went back to the NHL.

So this is why Bettman knows he can lock them out. The owners are fed up with these insane contracts and I bet they are willing to fire them all .

Hire new guys to play for the teams.


Yeah your are right everyone else is wrong remove that picture of kessler you just bladed him since you play for the owners.
Laugh out loud

I dont think you really understand totally the full picture its like me the owner making money off of you by selling bobble heads of your identity all they want is a part of it after all it is you right.

Do you want a bobble head of the owner I think not

Now I dont understand all of it myself but I think the players are on the right track accommodating but not losing everything they have worked for in lock out s in the past. It just makes sense

Anyways I actually split in the middle so I think it should be a 50% split thats my call

May us fans can get tickets for half price?

Edited by enterin, 14 September 2012 - 10:28 AM.


#6 YEGCanuck

YEGCanuck

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,145 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 09

Posted 14 September 2012 - 10:32 AM

Making sense seems to have little to do with such a negotiation. Given a majority of players make more than one million doolars a year and have a high school education I am thinking they should be grateful for the opportunity to play a game for however long fans are willing to pay their way.

#7 SukhKular

SukhKular

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-November 03

Posted 14 September 2012 - 10:39 AM

Making sense seems to have little to do with such a negotiation. Given a majority of players make more than one million doolars a year and have a high school education I am thinking they should be grateful for the opportunity to play a game for however long fans are willing to pay their way.


They are risking their quality of life when they play. Ask Eric Lindros.

Edited by SukhKular, 14 September 2012 - 10:39 AM.

I'm saying Aladeen a lot because http://forum.canucks...dpost__10922428

I bet when Schneider turns 38, he will have broken all of Luongo's records.


Posted Image

General Manager of Buffalo Sabres; CDC Omega League; CM Connected; NHL 13; [[[[PS3]]]]

#8 hockeyville88

hockeyville88

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,572 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 06

Posted 14 September 2012 - 11:12 AM

http://forum.canucks...lockout-thread/
Posted Image
Sig credit: GoaltenderInterference. Thanks!




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.