Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Boudrias

Do the NHLPA demands make sense?

8 posts in this topic

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.