Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * - - - 3 votes

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
6226 replies to this topic

#1861 JAH

JAH

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,284 posts
  • Joined: 19-August 05

Posted 24 October 2012 - 04:46 PM

I'm listening to Bob McCown right now and he had an interesting theory that reportedly came from an owner.  I may have some of the details wrong, but the basic theory was that if they cancel the season, in the spring the NHL could say "Here is the new deal, take it or leave it", and drop the lockout.  Then the players would be forced to either accept the deal, or go on strike.  However, his speculation was, at that point, at least a third of the players, maybe even half, would opt to cross the picket line and report to work.  This would essentially break the back of the union.

My question is... legally, can the NHL even do that if they wanted to?  Or are they required to come to an agreement with the NHLPA before opening the doors?


I am 99% sure this cannot happen. The owners cannot grant a reduced CBA to a group of players unless it is ratified, even if that group is comprised of ones that defy their union and cross a picket line. In short, they can't say 'whoever wants to play for 43% come over and sign.' The agreement has to be ratified by the membership. On top of that, a lot of Unions have rules on what you can and cannot due during a labour dispute (usually centred around where you can work), and clearly they would not allow their members to be scabs. There most likely would be hefty fines and they would no longer be members in good standing.    If the owners lift the stike without a new deal, most labour law states that the old, expired CBA is in effect (players get 57%). Clearly the owners would never do this.The only way this could happen is if the NHLPA decertified, thereby relinquishing their exclusive right to bargain with the NHL. Then the NHL could hire anyone they want as players, including members of the current NHLPA.
  • 0
'It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up.' - Muhammad Ali

#1862 Mauii

Mauii

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Joined: 28-January 06

Posted 24 October 2012 - 04:49 PM

The NHL is a strange entity...they seem to lack any sense of legal or business accountability, and this CBA negotiation is really bringing all this to light.

Perhaps the only way the lock out be lifted and have players back on the ice is with the old CBA which has been agreed upon, which the NHLPA had proposed. I have to say, the NHLPA is sounding more and more up and up on this whole CBA negotiation, and sounding like they know more what they're doing then the NHL. Maybe Fehr for Commissioner? He reminds me of a brilliant lawyer I used to work for...always 3 steps ahead of everyone and much revered by everyone that has crossed his path...thereafter my experiences with any other lawyer went down hill from there...often more ego then brains. Brilliant lawyers with the right acumen and no ego are hard to come by.

Edited by Mauii, 25 October 2012 - 01:08 PM.

  • 1
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

#1863 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,115 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 24 October 2012 - 04:59 PM

I am 99% sure this cannot happen.


I was 99% sure it couldn't happen either. That's why I was surprised to hear it on the radio show on TV, and thought it was worth bringing up here.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1864 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 72,111 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 24 October 2012 - 09:33 PM

@NabilKarimTSN

@BarackObama on Leno on @NHL lockout: "You guys make money (owners and players) b/c you have a whole bunch fans out there, who are working really hard, they buy tickets and they're watching on tv. Ya'll should be able to figure this out. Get this done" #TSN #NHL
  • 3

307mg00.jpg


#1865 MoneypuckOverlord

MoneypuckOverlord

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,473 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 09

Posted 24 October 2012 - 10:14 PM

players don't want to take another pay cut, NHL has asked the players to take a 24% reduction in the new cba. Why? Record breaking years the last 2 seasons and your asking the players to take more cut? This doesn't make sense to the NHLPA. NHL is trying to low ball them not sure why. The only clause I like in the NHL offer is max 5 year contracts, thats the only thing I like about it.

it sucks.

In 2005 I sided with the owners
in 2012 I'm siding with the players on this one. They don't deserve a 24% reduction. I know they are millionares, but still, these owners are billionares.
  • 0

Players Nikolaj Ehlers have been compared too by the fan base of the Vancouver Canucks.

 

1 Pavel Bure

2 Markus Naslund

3 Nathan Mackkinon

4 Jonathan Drouin.

5 Jonathan Tavares

 

http://bleacherrepor...d-top-prospects

combine results.  Ehlers 5'11 162 lbs of solid rock.  


#1866 Lui's Knob

Lui's Knob

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,899 posts
  • Joined: 13-May 10

Posted 24 October 2012 - 10:38 PM

There should be hockey. Just leaves a terrible taste in ones mouth the excessively drawn out it goes.
  • 0

#1867 canuckelhead70

canuckelhead70

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 609 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 12

Posted 25 October 2012 - 04:26 AM

players don't want to take another pay cut, NHL has asked the players to take a 24% reduction in the new cba. Why? Record breaking years the last 2 seasons and your asking the players to take more cut? This doesn't make sense to the NHLPA. NHL is trying to low ball them not sure why. The only clause I like in the NHL offer is max 5 year contracts, thats the only thing I like about it.

it sucks.

In 2005 I sided with the owners
in 2012 I'm siding with the players on this one. They don't deserve a 24% reduction. I know they are millionares, but still, these owners are billionares.


interesting seeing how the salary cap went from a high of 39M after the last lock out to a high of $70 during this lock out and the players lost in people's opinion.

In 2003-04 team pay rolls were before the salary cap was put into the league

ATL 24M
FLA 26M
MINN 26M
NASH 23M
PITTS 26M

Now these teams have to pay a minimum of 63ish M


Without these 30 owners willing to own these teams there would be 700 hockeys players grinding it out 9 to 5 like a lot of fans

Edited by canuckelhead70, 25 October 2012 - 04:27 AM.

  • 0

#1868 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 72,111 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 25 October 2012 - 07:53 AM

Here it is:


  • 1

307mg00.jpg


#1869 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,233 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 25 October 2012 - 08:26 AM

Here it is:


Has that windbag ever been stuck for something to say. Talk about flash and no substance.
  • 0

#1870 M A K A V E L I 96

M A K A V E L I 96

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,554 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 25 October 2012 - 09:41 AM

@BarackObama on Leno on @NHL lockout: "You guys make money (owners and players) b/c you have a whole bunch fans out there, who are working really hard, they buy tickets and they're watching on tv. Ya'll should be able to figure this out. Get this done" #TSN #NHL


After hearing that, Tim Thomas is for the lockout. :)
  • 0
Posted Image

#1871 boxiebrown

boxiebrown

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 646 posts
  • Joined: 06-May 08

Posted 25 October 2012 - 10:43 AM

*
POPULAR

Has that windbag ever been stuck for something to say. Talk about flash and no substance.


You're right - Leno is the worst.
  • 8

#1872 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,637 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 25 October 2012 - 11:10 AM

*
POPULAR

interesting seeing how the salary cap went from a high of 39M after the last lock out to a high of $70 during this lock out and the players lost in people's opinion.

In 2003-04 team pay rolls were before the salary cap was put into the league

ATL 24M
FLA 26M
MINN 26M
NASH 23M
PITTS 26M

Now these teams have to pay a minimum of 63ish M


Without these 30 owners willing to own these teams there would be 700 hockeys players grinding it out 9 to 5 like a lot of fans


Everyone considered the last CBA negotiation an unqualified win for the owners because they got everything they wanted, including the salary cap and players taking a large immediate salary cut, and gave up almost nothing in return. (You can give them half credit for accepting the union's proposal of team revenue sharing, but only half because they made it unnecessarily limited and knowingly inadequate.)

You're right about the salaries rising, but conveniently forget the reality around that fact. Here are a few of those other facts you forgot:
  • Prior to the 2004-05 lockout, the average NHL franchise was worth $163.3 million.
  • According to Forbes, the average NHL franchise is valued at $239.83 million, based on the numbers generated from the 2010-2011 season. This means that the average NHL franchise has increased nearly 47% in seven years. This appreciation has easily outpaced the rate of inflation ($1 of 2003 dollars is worth about $1.20 now).
  • Prior to the 2004-05 lockout taking place, the average NHL team was bringing in $74.6 million/year in revenues, for a total of $2.24 billion.
  • In the 2010-11 season, the average NHL team took in $103.5 million in revenues, for a total of $3.1 billion.
  • NHL franchises, on average, are much more profitable than they were prior to the lockout taking place.
  • According to Forbes, the average NHL team posted a net operating income (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) of -$3.2 million during the 2003-04 season. According to Forbes, NHL teams lost a total of $96 million during the 2003-04 season.
  • According to Forbes, the average NHL team made $4.29 million last year, for a total of $128.8 million in total net operating income.
Source: http://www.davemanue...05-lockout-135/

That means even with the increase in salaries (which is directly tied to the increase in revenues via the cap) teams are still on average making more money than they were before. And more teams could have done even better simply by behaving responsibly. Teams only have to spend to the cap floor, not the cap ceiling. Spending more than they are absolutely required to is a choice on the owners' part and not one the players should be asked to pay for.

And had the owners better designed or at any time expanded the team revenue sharing to even what's being proposed now (which would put NHL revenue sharing close to what the NBA and MLB offer) even more teams would have been made profitable. In fact, only 2 teams reported an operating loss of more than $10 M in 2011. So, if a full share (as it was in the past and is proposed to be in the future) is $10 M that means all but 2 teams will be made profitable (albeit some barely, but others, like Pittsburgh, will pocket almost the full $10 M as profit.) And it's not a hardship for owners. The proposed 6% revenue sharing is barely more than the NHL's own projected revenue growth rate of 5% (and below the union's projected 7%), so it's not even like they really have to give up much. Of course, with the salary reductions the owners are demanding from players, in the end players will actually be paying for it.

The point is, owners are not poor. They are not losing money on average. And even if they are losing money, it's well within their means individually and collectively to correct their bad business practices and improve their own bottom line without always expecting the employees to take the hit for them.
  • 9
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#1873 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,511 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 25 October 2012 - 11:11 AM

interesting seeing how the salary cap went from a high of 39M after the last lock out to a high of $70 during this lock out and the players lost in people's opinion.

In 2003-04 team pay rolls were before the salary cap was put into the league

ATL 24M
FLA 26M
MINN 26M
NASH 23M
PITTS 26M

Now these teams have to pay a minimum of 63ish M


Without these 30 owners willing to own these teams there would be 700 hockeys players grinding it out 9 to 5 like a lot of fans

To your last point, there would likely be at least 8-10 people (or groups of people) willing to step up and own teams in profitable markets if we didn't have the owners we do now. That would certainly mean less teams, so less players at the NHL level, but the others not good enough would take over jobs of lesser players playing in other leagues (AHL, KHL, SEL, etc).

You're first point is why I wanted to reply though, about the cap starting at $39M and ending up at $70M. That's nearly an 80% increase, and since the cap is tied to revenues, that means revenue went up similarly over the span of the last CBA. Sure, player salaries also went up (average NHL salary increased less than 80% actually, only about 66%), and a number of owners invested in their franchises with more spent on coaching, scouting, locker room upgrades, etc., but the general cost of things didn't also rise 80% over that time.

Arena support staff and concession workers haven't had 80% wage increases. Travel and hotel costs haven't had 80% increases. Property taxes for those that own their own stadiums haven't increased 80%. Cost of equipment and producing merchandise haven't had 80% increases. Those are are expenditures counting against the profit margin, and it shows despite revenue increasing, expenditures haven't kept the same pace.

The NHL agreed to have the cap tied to revenue rather than profit, and didn't stop offering increasing contracts just because they weren't being profitable despite those increased revenues, so it's hard to put all that blame on the players. I've said from the start the players had to have some idea that increasing salaries (at least to the extremes that some are) would be an issue, and yet they accepted those contracts, so they aren't blameless either.

The owners have to stand up and admit their own mistakes though, rather than try and punish the players - and the fans for helping to increase those revenues for them.

EDIT: poetica was able to jump in before I replied, but good points in both. The fact remains the profitability of the teams doesn't include outside sources of income still related to the team in some way. These extras (for instance, Florida doesn't own their building but has a $30M agreement to manage it, we see the same negotiations happening in Phoenix) are a part of what the owners consider before buying a team to see if it will be profitable. It also isn't factored into HRR so the players never see a share, and the owners are allowed to deduct other team-related expenses as well to further reduce HRR.

Edited by elvis15, 25 October 2012 - 11:30 AM.

  • 2

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#1874 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,904 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 25 October 2012 - 11:13 AM

Has that windbag ever been stuck for something to say. Talk about flash and no substance.


Now I know why you're so pro owners, you got those tea party "job creator" glasses on.
  • 3

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#1875 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,983 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 25 October 2012 - 11:20 AM

Now I know why you're so pro owners, you got those tea party "job creator" glasses on.


Nah. I think he just gets antsy around Muslims :bigblush:

Edited by nateb123, 25 October 2012 - 11:20 AM.

  • 1

#1876 Erik Karlsson

Erik Karlsson

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,825 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 09

Posted 25 October 2012 - 12:12 PM

They would be smart to end the lockout right now, They would get all of their fans back and everyone would be more excited then ever. Which equals more $.

The longer they wait the more money they lose from lost wages and angry fans.
  • 0

m97o1w.jpg

Credit to Parise11


#1877 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,500 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 25 October 2012 - 01:00 PM

Bettman doesn't care about the fans, it's pretty clear. He takes us for granted, especially the Canadian fans.

The american fans will be fine as they would prefer to watch one of their other 3 pro franchises.
  • 0

#1878 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,233 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 25 October 2012 - 01:21 PM

Now I know why you're so pro owners, you got those tea party "job creator" glasses on.

All in a day's work!:)
  • 0

#1879 zombieksa

zombieksa

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,157 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 11

Posted 25 October 2012 - 01:24 PM

Lp
  • 0
"All religion, my friend, is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination, and poetry."
-Edgar Allen Poe

#1880 Mauii

Mauii

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Joined: 28-January 06

Posted 25 October 2012 - 01:31 PM

@NabilKarimTSN

@BarackObama on Leno on @NHL lockout: "You guys make money (owners and players) b/c you have a whole bunch fans out there, who are working really hard, they buy tickets and they're watching on tv. Ya'll should be able to figure this out. Get this done" #TSN #NHL

Gotta love Obama...he understands its the fans that's important and what keeps the NHL alive...and provide the NHL with their revenue...and pay players ridiculous salaries...with the fans hard earned dollars no less. You are in the entertainment business...without an audience you won't have billions/millions/hundreds of thousands to squabble over...and people to buy your tix or watch your games on tv...the NHL will be a ghost town. These lockouts are growing tiresome not only for the fans but players as well and people are jumping ship. Again, without the two you will not have billions/millions to fight over...time to get your priorities straight and be accountable and do what's right...in this process of fighting over millions you are losing millions...which is kind of counterproductive. The old CBA was working to some degree, it just needed tinkering re player contracts and a system holding teams more financially accountable and a system that is more financially viable for the marginal teams...then everyone can get back in the game and the owners and the players can continue to make millions and the fans will be happy and continue to invest in the game.

Edited by Mauii, 25 October 2012 - 02:08 PM.

  • 0
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

#1881 Brambojoe

Brambojoe

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 263 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 07

Posted 25 October 2012 - 02:08 PM

The lockout will soon solve the biggest problem in the NHL.

"There is more money than the organization is competently able to manage"

I don't really see the greed angle as it appears both sides are going to loose money at this point.
  • 0

#1882 Gumballthechewy

Gumballthechewy

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,905 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 25 October 2012 - 02:30 PM

The lockout will soon solve the biggest problem in the NHL.

"There is more money than the organization is competently able to manage"

I don't really see the greed angle as it appears both sides are going to loose money at this point.


They may be losing money now but that little 7% is like... wow man! Gotta have it!
  • 0

Don't take anything I say seriously! EVER!


#1883 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 25 October 2012 - 02:56 PM

I was saying to a friend a couple of days ago that if D Fehr does not negotiate from the latest NHL offer the owners would withdraw the offer on Friday evening. Then, early next week they should announce the league is starting the process to bring in replacement players.

Looks like the NHL didn't even wait until Friday. Awesome. Time to get tough with this clown D Fehr. He almost ruined MLB, it took steroid infused HR races to bring the fans back.

Next step, announce replacement players.

The National Hockey League will withdraw its latest CBA proposal to the NHL Players' Association once Thursday's deadline to finalize a new deal passes.
There were no talks held between both sides on Thursday and none have been held since last week's NHL proposal and counter-proposals from the NHLPA.
"When we delivered the proposal last Tuesday, we told them it would be on the table through today," NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly told TSN Hockey Insider Pierre LeBrun on ESPN.com Thursday afternoon. "Having not reached agreement through today, I expect that we'll formally notify the union Friday that the proposal is no longer on the table. We're going to take it back internally and figure out where we go from here."

Daly also emphasized that he was not threatening the players in any way, but underlying what the league had already told the the NHLPA last Tuesday when it delivered the proposal.

"This proposal no longer works because it was a proposal to save 82 games," Daly said. "We have to re-think where we are, and what type of season we're looking at, and we have to formulate and construct a proposal that makes sense for the reality of where we are."
NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr was not surprised by the league's statement on withdrawing the offer.
"This is a standard approach, I think it was done in the NBA in the same way," Fehr told TSN Hockey Insider Pierre LeBrun on ESPN.com. "Review the history here: they make a proposal, it's essentially a take it or leave it, we respond on the core economics, they take 10 minutes and say no. They tell all the players if we're agreeable to everything except the Make Whole (provision) including all the stuff that's in there, I can give Gary a telephone call. And then we have made several efforts, including yesterday, to say we're prepared to sit down and negotiate with no pre-conditions. They essentially said No. It takes two to negotiate. They seem to be really good at imposing deadlines and issuing ultimatums and having lockouts. It seems to be something they're well-practised at."
While Daly did not offer specifics, the NHL is expected to cancel games for the rest of November on Friday. The league cancelled regular season games from Oct. 25 throught Nov. 1 last week, wiping out 135 games in total.
"Obviously those decisions are imminent and we're going to have to do what we have to do," he said.

  • 0

#1884 canuckelhead70

canuckelhead70

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 609 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 12

Posted 25 October 2012 - 02:58 PM

To your last point, there would likely be at least 8-10 people (or groups of people) willing to step up and own teams in profitable markets if we didn't have the owners we do now. That would certainly mean less teams, so less players at the NHL level, but the others not good enough would take over jobs of lesser players playing in other leagues (AHL, KHL, SEL, etc).



It is easy to find people that will buy teams in profitable markets that goes without saying, it's teams like PHX, Nashville, FLA, Dallas, NJ, Tampa, Colorado
Prior to the 2004-05 lockout, the average NHL franchise was worth $163.3 million.

The three most valuable teams were:

New York Rangers - $282.0 million
Toronto Maple Leafs - $280.0 million
Philadelphia Flyers - $264.0 million

The three least valuable teams were:

Carolina Hurricanes - $100.0 million
Pittsburgh Penguins - $101.0 million
Buffalo Sabres - $103.0 million

Fast forward to current day. According to Forbes, the average NHL franchise is valued at $239.83 million, based on the numbers generated from the 2010-2011 season. This means that the average NHL franchise has increased nearly 47% in seven years. This appreciation has easily outpaced the rate of inflation ($1 of 2003 dollars is worth about $1.20 now).

Let’s look at the three most valuable franchises at present:

Toronto Maple Leafs, $521 million
New York Rangers, $507 million
Montreal Canadiens, $445 million

The Maple Leafs have increased 86.0% in value since before the 2004-05 lockout, while the Rangers have increased 80% and the Canadiens have increased a whopping 128.2%.

The three least valuable franchises present day are:

Phoenix Coyotes, $134 million
New York Islanders, $149 million
Columbus Blue Jackets, $152 million

--

The combination of rising revenues and restrained player costs have conspired to greatly increase the net operating incomes of a number of teams, especially those in the “big” hockey markets.

Prior to the 2004-05 lockout taking place, the average NHL team was bringing in $74.6 million/year in revenues, for a total of $2.24 billion.

In the 2010-11 season, the average NHL team took in $103.5 million in revenues, for a total of $3.1 billion. The NHL has enjoyed a resurgence over the past 6-7 years thanks to new fan-friendly rules, innovations such as the “Winter Classic” and exciting new stars such as Sidney Crosby and Alexander Ovechkin.

NHL franchises, on average, are much more profitable than they were prior to the lockout taking place.

According to Forbes, the average NHL team posted a net operating income (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) of -$3.2 million during the 2003-04 season. According to Forbes, NHL teams lost a total of $96 million during the 2003-04 season.

Fast forward to present day. According to Forbes, the average NHL team made $4.29 million last year, for a total of $128.8 million in total net operating income.

Thanks to cost certainty, the teams that are bringing in the most revenues are absolutely killing it. Here are the top five revenue teams for last season, along with their net operating income:

Toronto Maple Leafs, $193 million Revenues, $81.8 million Operating Income

New York Rangers, $169 million Revenues, $41.4 million Operating Income

Montreal Canadiens, $165 million Revenues, $47.7 million Operating Income

Vancouver Canucks, $146 million Revenues, $23.5 million Operating Income

Detroit Red Wings, $127 million Revenues, $16.3 million Operating Income

As you can imagine, the teams with the lowest revenues are all losing money, as they are forced to “spend to the floor”, per the CBA. The “salary floor” is fixed at $16 million below the cap (the current cap is $64.3 million), which means that teams must spend at least $48.3 million in player salaries.

Here are the five bottom revenue teams as of the 2010-11 season:

New York Islanders, $63 million Revenues, -$8.1 million Operating Income

Phoenix Coyotes, $70 million Revenues, -$24.4 million Operating Income

Winnipeg Jets, $71 million Revenues, -$5.2 million Operating Income

St. Louis Blues, $78 million Revenues, -$2.7 million Operating Income

Columbus Blue Jackets, $80 million Revenues, -$13.7 million Operating Income

During the 2003-04 season, a total of 17 teams (according to Forbes) posted negative net income.

During the 2010-11 season, a total of 18 teams posted negative net income.

--

There is another battle over the CBA brewing, as the current deal expires at the end of this season.

Currently the NHL players are entitled to a maximum of 57% of all revenues. There is some talk that the owners want to “tweak” the CBA in order to bring player costs down to closer to 50% of revenues.

NHL owners will likely point to the fact that there are 18 teams in the league that are reportedly posting negative operating income as the reason why the CBA should be tweaked (in the owner’s favor, of course).

NHL players, on the other hand, will likely point to the surge in revenues and positive overall operating income as signs that they should not be forced to take a smaller percentage of league revenues.

One thing is for sure - the new CBA has been very, very kind to the teams that brings in the most revenues.

--

Here is the change in NHL franchise values since the 2003-04 season:

Pittsburgh Penguins, $264 Million, 161.4%
Montreal Canadiens, $445 Million, 128.2%
Edmonton Oilers, $212 Million, 103.8%
Vancouver Canucks, $300 Million, 102.7%
Washington Capitals, $225 Million, 95.7%
Calgary Flames, $220 Million, 89.7%
Toronto Maple Leafs, $521 Million, 86.1%
New York Rangers, $507 Million, 79.8%
Chicago Blackhawks, $306 Million, 71.9%
Carolina Hurricanes, $169 Million, 69.0%
Buffalo Sabres, $173 Million, 68.0%
Anaheim Ducks, $181 Million, 67.6%
Ottawa Senators, $201 Million, 60.8%
Atlanta Thrashers, $164 Million, 54.7%
Nashville Predators, $163 Million, 46.8%
New Jersey Devils, $181 Million, 46.0%
San Jose Sharks, $211 Million, 41.6%
Boston Bruins, $325 Million, 37.7%
Detroit Red Wings, $336 Million, 35.5%
Florida Panthers, $162 Million, 33.9%
Minnesota Wild, $213 Million, 30.7%
Los Angeles Kings, $232 Million, 20.2%
Tampa Bay Lightning, $174 Million, 16.0%
St. Louis Blues, $157 Million, 12.1%
Philadelphia Flyers, $290 Million, 9.8%
Columbus Blue Jackets, $152 Million, 9.4%
Phoenix Coyotes, $134 Million, -1.5%
New York Islanders, $149 Million, -6.9%
Dallas Stars, $230 Million, -11.2%
Colorado Avalanche, $198 Million, -19.5%

  • 0

#1885 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,887 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 25 October 2012 - 03:33 PM

The two sides are so hardened into their positions that the only resolution is going to be when one side's membership starts to fracture. I think the players have a lot of unused leverage so far to help them in this regard.

Bettman keeps suggesting that the NHL=Hockey... the players need to separate the game of hockey from the NHL version, and set themselves up to look like they are the stewards of "the game".

Players currently can't plan more than a couple of weeks ahead because they are obligated to honour their NHL contracts if a deal is struck (even if they are playing in Russia). This results in a lot of guys waiting and not making plans to play in alternate leagues as who wants to upset your family life for what could only be a few days.

The NHLPA needs to have their own deadline where they say they are going to start playing hockey, with or without the NHL. It means that they will not negotiate to play in the NHL for the remainder of the season.

This allows:

- players to decide to play overseas and make commitments for the full season
- players and the NHLPA to organize their own tournaments (eg. Bieksa's buddies) where they give the fans at least a game every couple of weeks in each of the main markets. Contributing half the proceeds to player charities is a way to make them REALLY sound like the good guys
- TV networks can negotiate coverage of other leagues to give the stay at home fans some hockey. The are doing this right now on an adhoc basis by broadcasting single AHL games. I know I would happily watch Kassian/Tanev and our other prospects play a few games a month.

The worst thing for the owners is if they see full stadiums of cheering fans watching hockey in other buildings other than their own. Add to that players getting paycheques from TV and gate revenue (even for less than their NHL salary)

A lot of the owners I am confident are a lot less OK with losing a whole season than losing a month or two. With a hard, player imposed, deadline for the season there is a real impetus to make a deal.

Edited by Provost, 25 October 2012 - 04:52 PM.

  • 1
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#1886 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,637 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 25 October 2012 - 03:37 PM

[Edited for brevity.]
I was saying to a friend a couple of days ago that if D Fehr does not negotiate from the latest NHL offer the owners would withdraw the offer on Friday evening. Then, early next week they should announce the league is starting the process to bring in replacement players.

Looks like the NHL didn't even wait until Friday. Awesome. Time to get tough with this clown D Fehr. He almost ruined MLB, it took steroid infused HR races to bring the fans back.


*sigh*

Why is it Fehr's fault for not negotiating from the NHL proposal but not Bettman's fault for not negotiating from one of the PA's proposals? Why is one party's behavior the fault of the other? If the NHL actually wants to make a deal (and not just stall until they can shove an even more owner biased deal down the throats of the players), how about they call up Fehr and say, "Lets get in a room, talk and get this done!"? Instead, they are the ones who refused when they got a similar call from Fehr. So why get mad at Fehr for not negotiating when he's the one who's offered, but not Bettman when he's the one who's refused?

I get you're mad and frustrated. So am I, and I'm sure almost every other fan is too. We're all in the same sinking boat. But blaming one side for a behavior that seems to be acceptable for the other will never get us anywhere. In fact, it only encourages the owners to continue to behave like spoiled brats who won't even talk unless you promise they'll only have to play with their favorite toy.

We need to demand they both act like grown ups, stop worrying about who wins the "they had to use my proposal to start negotiating from" imaginary award, and get back to entertaining us before all of that theoretical, still-yet-to-be-earned money they're fighting over disappears along with fans' support.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#1887 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,762 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 25 October 2012 - 03:44 PM

As I keep saying.... there is a 3rd option here rather than take one position or the other. Both primary goals can be met for each side but someone needs to take the fall.

How about:

- A one time walk away from a single contract from each of the 30 teams.
- This right can be traded to teams looking for more than one.
- Immediate 50/50 split of HRR.
- All contracts honoured at face value
- 7 year contract lengths
- 28/8 UFA
- Fully pro-rated contracts


If the average value of each contract is $3 mil x 30 teams (+ min. salary replacement) = approximately $75 million in immediate salary reduction this season.

Although not ideal, at least 22 of 23 players on each squad will have their contracts honoured in full.

Edited by theminister, 25 October 2012 - 03:48 PM.

  • 0

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#1888 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,386 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 25 October 2012 - 04:06 PM

As I keep saying.... there is a 3rd option here rather than take one position or the other. Both primary goals can be met for each side but someone needs to take the fall.

How about:

- A one time walk away from a single contract from each of the 30 teams.
- This right can be traded to teams looking for more than one.
- Immediate 50/50 split of HRR.
- All contracts honoured at face value
- 7 year contract lengths
- 28/8 UFA
- Fully pro-rated contracts


If the average value of each contract is $3 mil x 30 teams (+ min. salary replacement) = approximately $75 million in immediate salary reduction this season.

Although not ideal, at least 22 of 23 players on each squad will have their contracts honoured in full.


I like to figure myself as a very knowledage hockey fan.

I look at that proposal - and it makes sense.

But sadly the egos of Bettman and Fehr are now involved.

Our love of the game and the ability to enjoy it, is being decided by two men who want to 'win' the lock-out.

I *understand* why the NHL didn't want to operate temporarily under the old CBA, but it just doesn't make sense why they didn't make a stronger push to make a deal happen BEFORE Sept 15; rather than an artificial date in Nov, Dec or Jan.

But as I said - it simply comes down to the fact, that Bettman and Fehr want to win the lock-out, and because of that, we miss out on the thing we love.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1889 coastal1

coastal1

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 729 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 12

Posted 25 October 2012 - 04:14 PM

Bettman doesn't care about the fans, it's pretty clear. He takes us for granted, especially the Canadian fans.

The american fans will be fine as they would prefer to watch one of their other 3 pro franchises.

And is Bettman wrong about canadian fans? Of course not. The point is Bettman offered the deal everyone expected to solve this: 50/50. The players rejected it. So the owners will wait until the players change their mind. I think the players have no credibility left at all. Just plain greed from them. And it will bite them in the ass.
  • 0

#1890 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,386 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 25 October 2012 - 04:16 PM

And is Bettman wrong about canadian fans? Of course not. The point is Bettman offered the deal everyone expected to solve this: 50/50. The players rejected it. So the owners will wait until the players change their mind. I think the players have no credibility left at all. Just plain greed from them. And it will bite them in the ass.


Greed?

How is asking for money that you are LEGALLY entitled to being greedy?

If anything, being greedy is, promising money to someone, and then asking for some of it back, just because you can.

Edited by Squeak, 25 October 2012 - 04:19 PM.

  • 2
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

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.