Archived

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

BuretoMogilny

Kesler/Bieksa/Lou Twitter

158 posts in this topic

Actually no, its a point about wall st. you can choose to use your own biases to determine how that affects your mindset, clearly the only one trying to boast here is you. Sign of a weak argument is starting with an insult.

Second, you would know if you 'took money from wall st' that your comment is a paradox, since those engaged in what you suggest you do (and I highly doubt it, you're probably a kid in uni who just learned about futures lol) are considered wall st. Wall st. is not a St. only, those who have worked in the industry understand that, its an idea. This kinda proves to me you're full of it lol..but I digress.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I say "Wall Street" I mean the institutions that take the other sides of my trades every day. A retail trader like me, trading his own money independently, is NOT "Wall Street", my account size is far too small for any of them to even care that I exist.

That's not a RULE, though. If Alex Edler wants $6.0M per year because player $X is making $Y, does Mike Gillis have to sign him? NO! There's always a choice. You have $X available every year to ice a team with, and it's management's job (who was hired by their owner) to do just that.

Owners who are "bleeding money" are propped-up by the Toronto's and the Vancouver's of the league.

If HRR is growing, where is the basis for rolling back salaries? Have expenses grown as much as HRR has over the past 8 years? Unlikely.

Owners DO have a chance at making a profit. Why do you say that they don't? Vancouver was not profitable when McCaw was the owner, which wasn't too long ago.

No, the owners bought a business, at their own discretion, and assumed that risk. If it went the other way, they'd be local heroes, swimming in money, and laughing all the way to the bank. The fact that they're bleeding money should've been one of the possible circumstances associated with ownership; which, since they're so business savvy as you say, I hope they would've considered before ploughing all that money into the franchise.

Unless...as I said before...could it be that owning a sports team is a vanity/ego play, far more than it is one of strong fundamental economic reasoning?!

Says the guy who's calling Gary Bettman, the man who championed the NHL into markets like Phoenix, Atlanta, Tampa Bay, etc., some sort of "business guru". Right.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple Math

Clearly if you are losing money and your revenues are increasing your expenses are rising faster than your revenue growth...Not sure what part of that you don't want to accept.

Yes GM's don't have to sign players to certain amounts, but if the Sedin's didn't take the home town discount, Burrows, (Edler likely going to have to) etc, then would we have kept them? No, so the logical outcome is that you have a league of haves and have nots.

How would you like to watch the canucks with out Hank and Daniel, Burrows, etc? We'd be back in the Keenan days wouldn't we?

Can't argue the decisions of Bettman in his placement of some teams, but its easy to argue in hindsight, he was trying to grow the game in big cities that support major league franchises and have the population/money to maintain them. Mr. Bettman has also lead the league to that same incredible revenue growth you suggest and a huge contract from NBC. So you can't argue both sides of the same coin...again easy to cherry pick to support arguments.

Clearly losing teams are not propped up as this is one of the issues the NHLPA has mentioned they are trying to address in their counter proposal, fact checking sir.

Sure, owning a team is a vanity ego play, no one suggested otherwise, its a factor but so is making money. Rich men don't stay rich by putting money in losing enterprises, I have stated this before. Eventually people will not want to invest money in a losing proposition (NASL maybe?)

Yes owners bought a business, but if the rules of the game are such that they can't afford to compete without losing money, only those with the deepest pockets/willingness to bleed/biggest egos will win. Those teams that don't have that will become feeders for those 4-5 teams.

If you haven't noticed the parity in the league over the last 10 yrs has improved significantly well, not sure what you're watching. Just like the NFL this is what keeps fans engaged in the long term, that year to year, even if you have an off season, you might win the cup the next, thats how a league survives. When you have end up having dynasties, have and have nots, expensive tickets, economic challenges in north america, alternatives for your entertainment dollars, and your team is losing well eventually the team disappears (grizzlies anyone? raptors soon enough?).

My final word on this. Owners will not support a league that makes them lose money. Its a stupid decision. They are not here to provide charity to you or I or the players because we love hockey. Why don't you pay $500 a seat instead, that way the player makes his money, the owner the profit and you can watch your game. You don't want to do that right? But you expect the owner to subsidize your entertainment, the player, and lose money.

Makes zero sense to me. You're not going to convince me otherwise, I have bought, run. and sold numerous businesses in my life. If you want to at least maintain your wealth you need to break even, if you want to increase it you need to make money. If you're in an industry that causes you to lose money year after year, after a certain amount of time, you will just exit, and there isn't often buyers for businesses in industries that are constantly losing money.

Again profits not revenues, profits matter.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple Math

Clearly if you are losing money and your revenues are increasing your expenses are rising faster than your revenue growth...Not sure what part of that you don't want to accept.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that as a former Wall Street guy you'd be aware that as private companies the NHL teams aren't required to disclose their audited financials. Heck, Aquilini could come out tomorrow and pronounce that he's losing $100M per year, and nobody could really debate him with any sort of certainty.

Moral: don't automatically believe what these owners are saying.

Why would you have a league of haves and have-nots based on that? Sedin's would find employment somewhere else and Vancouver would invest those dollars elsewhere. Vancouver choosing not to sign them would've been an organizational decision. Not unlike their decision to not match Salo's offer from Tampa.

Bettman's also led the sports world in work stoppages. More games lost than the MLB, NBA, and NFL combined. He is almost universally hated, and really not a good face for the NHL, which I hope you'd acknowledge.

The PA has said that they're fine doing that. Not an issue. If these teams are in different markets, other than ones hand-selected by Gary, this discussion probably wouldn't even need to take place.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. Parity is confirmation that the system is working. A salary split tied to revenues makes logical sense.

Before talking potential "dynasties", how about one first exists?

The owner made the decision to buy the team, and to be the big man in the city that owns the NHL team. They're also free to find a buyer elsewhere, if they want. NHL ownership isn't a lifetime contract. If he's losing money, I have no sympathy for him. Fix it.

Oh, is that how it works? :rolleyes:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not feel bad for me, I can afford it, you're not getting the point. These guys on average are much much much richer than they were post last lockout. They are all making a fine living, and most regular nhl'ers are millionaires. Crying poor...doesn't work so well.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Haves vs. Have nots, yes some players clearly choose to sign for significantly lower around the league. The Sedins are a rarity which is my point. Yes we could invest it somewhere else if they didn't take less, in players who aren't as good but you have to pay the same 5 mil to right? I am not sure why you don't understand this, well actually yes I do....but that's another issue. Its amazing how little you actually comprehend issues.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, you don't have to. All that you have to do is reach the floor.

Awww, it's "hard", is it? It's also "hard" to find a place to invest where the potential reward is so huge; which, therefore, justifies the risk. And that's a risk that they willingly assumed when they bought the business.

Look at Mike Heisley. He bought the Vancouver Grizzlies, a franchise that was bleeding money and that nobody wanted to play for, for $160M in 2001. Fast forward 11 years later, and it's now being sold for $350M.

That's an annually compounded rate of return of 7.38%, in a time where there was the worst recession in modern history. Where else are the owners going to find potential rewards like that? The restaurant business? Not bloody likely. $190M capital gain in 11 years?

:lol:

I live in Chicago, pal. And I lived in Detroit from 2009-11. Yes, I'm well-aware that hockey is not relevant here, and I'm well-aware that ticket prices are lower in the US. But the one thing that you're not considering is that that's not the players' responsibility! The players play the games, which people pay to see. It's not the role of the players to discuss advertising campaigns, fiscal policies, or anything else with the clubs (though they do frequently and willingly promote the teams through various means).

The PA's job is to play hockey. The owners' job is to earn a return off of them. It's that simple.

Salaries are escalating only because revenues are escalating. WHERE IS THIS UNREASONABLE? If revenues drop, salaries drop.

WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT COMPREHEND?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

are you retarded? really? Salaries are escalating at the high end because of a few stupid owners. So what happens? Teams have to spend to the cap just to field a 1/2 decent team, there is no give right? its a comparable system. If the guys at the top are making 7-8 million it trickles down. So to fill out an entire roster in order to be COMPETITVE you are effectively handcuffed into spending to the cap.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, salaries are escalating because they are TIED TO REVENUES, which are also escalating.

2/5 of the top spending teams last year didn't make the playoffs, and 1 of them was an 8th seed. Ottawa made the playoffs and there were only 4 teams that spent less than they did. There were only 6 teams that spent less than Nashville. St. Louis finished 2nd in the West, and there were only 7 teams that spent less money then them.

Oh yeah, Memphis, Tennessee, there's a town that's swimming in money, if I've ever seen one. LOL!

Not only that, the sale is being made at a time when there's still a great deal of uncertainty in the macro-economy. If Heisley had instead sold in '06, who knows what he could've got for them.

And what's wrong with moving franchises, exactly? Atlanta to Winnipeg seems to have worked OK.

Reeks of a guy who's just been owned, can't debate, nothing left to say.

Thanks.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I need a lawyer,I'll call you,that's for sure

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I need a lawyer,I'll call you,that's for sure

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allllright. Next person to break the rules here gets a three day suspension.

Please relax a little. You're arguing across a series of tubes. No need to blow a gasket over this.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the NHL players get payed for being the best at what they do. just like anyone else.

I might not make a lot of money but i do make more then most other people that do the same job as me because i am pretty good at it. i didn't go to school so i don't dream of the 200K a year job, But i can support my family on being at the Average income level in North America just fine. and i will still save up for some new canucks gear.

It is the Character of a man that makes him wealthy not the amount of money in his Bank account.

I have been offered Jobs that pay 3-4X's what i make and i turn them down for one reason . I enjoy being at home with my family every night. (but also if i was to take those jobs the only reason i would is for my family)

I might not make a bunch of money but i still donate what i can when i can.

Just because I take part in making someone rich does not make me feel any resentment towards the people i am helping make rich.

I do envy them at times thinking if i got the same opportunities as they did maybe i to could be doing what they are doing but my stars did not align like theres did but i am still gratefull for what i do have.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the NHL players get payed for being the best at what they do. just like anyone else.

I might not make a lot of money but i do make more then most other people that do the same job as me because i am pretty good at it. i didn't go to school so i don't dream of the 200K a year job, But i can support my family on being at the Average income level in North America just fine. and i will still save up for some new canucks gear.

It is the Character of a man that makes him wealthy not the amount of money in his Bank account.

I have been offered Jobs that pay 3-4X's what i make and i turn them down for one reason . I enjoy being at home with my family every night. (but also if i was to take those jobs the only reason i would is for my family)

I might not make a bunch of money but i still donate what i can when i can.

Just because I take part in making someone rich does not make me feel any resentment towards the people i am helping make rich.

I do envy them at times thinking if i got the same opportunities as they did maybe i to could be doing what they are doing but my stars did not align like theres did but i am still gratefull for what i do have.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.