The Bookie Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 oh man, what I wouldn't pay for someone to secretly get a webcam in the room for BOG's meeting on the 5th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauii Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 You cannot compare the 2004 and today's lockouts as the conditions and circumstances were different then. Significant changes and concessions were necessary to sustain the NHL in the 2004 lockout, hence, more willingness on part of the players to concede and to the fans a necessary evil. In this lockout the NHL is perceived as functioning on greed and bully behavior, especially after such a successful season, a lockout should not have been necessary and especially not to this degree. So, this time there is less willingness on part of the players to concede to the NHL in it's entirety as they've already given up a lot in the first lockout, but even so are still willing to adjust their portion of the HRR which should be a victory for the NHL and then negotiate contracting rights, but still the NHL seems unwilling to negotiate with the NHLPA or lift the lockout, and so to the fans the NHL is not looked on too kindly and angering a lot of fans and maybe will be less forgiving this time around. The fans should go Egypt (massive protest) on the NHL/Boston, if no one else can influence them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Forbes list bolsters NHLPA’s call for increased revenue sharing As Forbes magazine declared the Toronto Maple Leafs the first NHL franchise to hit $1-billion (all currency U.S.) in value, the league’s players and owners reluctantly sat down in Washington, D.C. with federal labour mediators. While the accuracy of Forbes’s numbers can be either questioned or cited by NHL commissioner Gary Bettman, the owners and managers depending on the point they are trying to make, the figures generally serve as a ballpark indicator of the NHL’s financial condition. What is important here is not so much the Leafs hitting a magic number - and who knows if that $1-billion value is dead on with the league once again mired in a lockout - but the great disparity in value between the NHL’s richest and poorest teams. It drives home one of the key points NHL Players’ Association executive Donald Fehr and his negotiators have made throughout the lockout – the path to financial health for all 30 teams is through increased revenue sharing. It is not something the wealthy teams are interested in, although the NHL reportedly is close to an agreement with the union on a revenue-sharing plan that would see around $230-million redistributed annually, an increase of about 53 per cent from the $150-million under the former collective agreement. However, that represents only about 7 per cent of the $3.3-billion the NHL brought in during the 2011-12 season. Major League Baseball, which found prosperity with greater revenue sharing thanks to the prodding of Fehr when he was head of that sport’s union, sees its rich teams put 31 per cent of their local revenue into a fund shared by the poorer relations. Since baseball also has sharp differences in revenue between financial powerhouses like the New York Yankees and basket cases like the Florida Marlins, it only makes sense that sharing would work for the NHL as well. But, in addition to refusing to consider compromises on contract issues and splitting revenue with the players, the most influential owners in the NHL don’t want to hear about more revenue sharing either. The numbers, though, suggest they should take a look. The top five teams in the league (in order, the Maple Leafs, New York Rangers, Montreal Canadiens, Chicago Blackhawks and Boston Bruins) are worth a total of $3.023-billion. The NHL’s bottom five teams – in order, the Carolina Hurricanes, New York Islanders, Columbus Blue Jackets, Phoenix Coyotes and St. Louis Blues – are worth a total of $726-million, a staggering $2.23-billion less. Maybe Scot Beckenbaugh and John Sweeny of the U.S. Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, an independent government agency, can drag some of the recalcitrant owners toward this position. But few are expecting much, since the last time the warring parties turned to mediation, in February, 2005 during the last NHL lockout, the entire season was cancelled a few days later. The parties sat down shortly after 1 p.m. Wednesday and the early indication was that the sessions could continue for a second day on Thursday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 For anyone interested, here's a link to a story listing each team's value and 2011/12 revenue & operating income. (There's also a link to the Forbes list.) http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Eklund/Whats-Your-Team-Worth--Meetings-with-The-Mediator-Underway-in-DC-/1/47710 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 You cannot compare the 2004 and today's lockouts as the conditions and circumstances were different then. Significant changes and concessions were necessary to sustain the NHL in the 2004 lockout, hence, more willingness on part of the players to concede and to the fans a necessary evil. In this lockout the NHL is perceived as functioning on greed and bully behavior, especially after such a successful season, a lockout should not have been necessary and especially not to this degree. So, this time there is less willingness on part of the players to concede to the NHL in it's entirety as they've already given up a lot in the first lockout, but even so are still willing to adjust their portion of the HRR which should be a victory for the NHL and then negotiate contracting rights, but still the NHL seems unwilling to negotiate with the NHLPA or lift the lockout, and so to the fans the NHL is not looked on too kindly and angering a lot of fans and maybe will be less forgiving this time around. The fans should go Egypt (massive protest) on the NHL/Boston, if no one else can influence them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 This article came out on July 9, and I still find this appalling that Leipold could say such things. So, he's defending his spending position of 196m based on better odds of winning and increasing revenue in the process? Sounds like "gambling" to me. Do business owners take risks? Sure, they do it all the time. It doesn't usually involve the entire staff taking a pay cut to pay for it though. Note that the MIN general staff just got bumped down to a 4 day work week starting after Xmas. On April 12, Wild owner Craig Leipold told the Star Tribune, "We're not making money, and that's one reason we need to fix our system. We need to fix how much we're spending right now." The national media picked up on the quote and accused Leipold of hypocrisy after his decision to sign Zach Parise and Ryan Suter to $196 million in long-term contracts last week. Leipold responded Monday, saying, "Listen: We've been losing money and the way we were going, we were going to have another year of 'keep losing more money and more money and more money.' So if I'm going to make the kind of financial commitment to keep this team and move this forward, I'd rather do it growing it. "Ultimately that was the decision. As a result of this move, it's not going to cause us to be financially stable. I believe it will be within a year or two. This is a move to get us out of the hole that we've been digging. And as I spoke with some other owners in the league as to why I did it, they totally get it. They understand it. At some point you have to make that kind of commitment in order to turn your franchise around. If we didn't, then we would just keep losing more going forward without any plan of changing it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 For anyone interested, here's a link to a story listing each team's value and 2011/12 revenue & operating income. (There's also a link to the Forbes list.) http://www.hockeybuz...-in-DC-/1/47710 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauii Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 The Haggerty article on Jacobs is probably a more accurate reflection of what is going on behind closed doors. Your assertion that there is more player unity this time around is premature. I suspect Hamrilick's outburst is happening more and more in the PA's phone info sessions. My memory of 2004 is different from yours. A season was lost and another threatened until the union threw out their Goodanow(?) and Trevor Linden led them back to the table. It was a complete route and the owners pretty much got everything they wanted. I don't see anything else different happening this time either. Even the threat of decertification is a red herring. It would only work if the majority of players supported it and I suspect they won't. I have lost respect for both sides of this dispute. I don't begrudge the owners making as much as they can in their businesses or the players doing the same. The responsible party in this equation has to be the fan. If fans continue to pay the prices for tickets and all the other BS associated with fandom then that is the way of the world. Neither the players or the owners have ever given two hoots about the amount of money they extract from the industry and how much that cost the fans. This current dispute is all about players and owners fighting over the spoils of their industry. I guess what I wanted to see was a more sophisticated approach to picking my pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Same old stuff, cancel the season and move on. We are all arguing with each other over the stupidest things. The paying customers (us) are so frustrated with this nonsense. If the players feel they aren't being treated right they should go play in other leagues. Either cancel the season or bring in the replacement players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Great article as well as the Forbes one! So 13 teams lost money...some made a few million and then the Leafs @ 81.9, Rangers @ 74 and the Habs at 51.6....so where exactly is this $340 million the players want? When you add up the Operating Income of all teams, the total is only $42.8 million... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 The NHL's Best (And Worst) Fans (the actual rankings are displayed in a slideshow on the Forbes site) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Remember, the the "make whole" money the players want wouldn't be over and above what the teams spent last season. Their new share will be significantly lower, so even with the additional $340 million (which is to be spread over several years!) teams would still be better off than they were last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 I disagree with Pittsburgh as #1. No issue with them being on the list, but a bit high to me, I think Edmonton should be #1, they have really no success yet they continue to sell out every game. You gotta admire that passion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 I don't disagree with Edmonton at all. Do they really still sell out, and for how long is the streak? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 The thing I find most odd is this (aside from the rash of other contradictions floating around) - the Bruins go out and sign Seguin to a 6 year $35 million deal, they extend Lucic at $6 million a year, they extend Marchand at $4.5 - right before the (allegedly unacceptable) CBA came to an end. They are hardliner #1, yet were deadline deal making under those terms. The Wild go nuts spending through the roof right before the CBA expired, claiming oddly enough that they were losing money and had no choice but to spend $200 million more!!! in an all-in bid to stop losing money??? They too are reportedly in the hardliner camp - yet no one hurt small franchises more than they did with those moves. The Calgary Flames (the poster boys for misspent money, NTCs, and all around head scratching decision making) - also reportedly in the hardliner camp. Bizarre stuff. They spent money like it was going out of style - in now in hindsight, it almost appears in a premeditated way - planning to drive a hardline rollback that will bail them out (of their own contradictions?). Did those midnight CBA signings give them somewhat of an advantage moving forward, relative to the better behaved teams? How is it that the least responsible fiscal franchises drive the lockout? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vv2 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 I disagree with Pittsburgh as #1. No issue with them being on the list, but a bit high to me, I think Edmonton should be #1, they have really no success yet they continue to sell out every game. You gotta admire that passion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Leafs should be #1 atleast the oilers fans have something to look forward to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Yes...and those playing over seas care nothing about themselves neither (for the most part). I don't care that the driving age is 16, or voting is 18, as I already passed them (long long time ago) - does that make me a selfish old goat? Oh - I disagree, I believe one person can make a difference: “I am only one; but still I am one. I cannot do everthing, but still I can do something; I will not refuse to do something I can do.” ― Helen Keller “Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.” ― Robert F. Kennedy “In a gentle way, you can shake the world.” ― Mahatma Gandhi “No work is insignificant. All labor that uplifts humanity has dignity and importance and should be undertaken with painstaking excellence.” ― Martin Luther King Jr. Oh..I'm sure I don't have to remind you of what a difference a certain Carpenter did over 2000 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 They have sold out every game since the 06-07, and the year prior they had 16,832 out of 16,839. so only 7 less thana sellout on average. http://www.hockeydb....ph.php?tmi=5632 Toronto has been wavering for a long time, they do stay above 19,000 but they still haven't sold out an entire season once since the lockout, atleast according to the capactiy Wikipedia has on there website for the ACC for hockey. Either way they have wavered by hundreds since the lockoutn and prior, but either way they have a major advantage on Edmonton in the sense that there are way more people in the Greater Toronto Area than in the Greater Edmonton area. http://www.hockeydb....ph.php?tmi=8490 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Is it for a 7 year contract? 7 x 42.8 = $299.6 million...that means the owners have to dig into their pockets for another $40? 8 years? Then the owners run a team for 8 years with no profit? Sounds like the business that everyone want to be in...I guess I don't really understand this part...where do they players think the money is coming from? Yes, teams will get more money each year - but they will also spend more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.