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

#2821 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 17 November 2012 - 06:14 PM

.

Edited by WHL rocks, 17 November 2012 - 06:15 PM.

  • 0

#2822 Red Light Racicot

Red Light Racicot

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,549 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 10

Posted 17 November 2012 - 06:24 PM

The problem with you all is that you are addicted to the game. After the 2004 lock-out, you rewarded the owners and PA with 3.3 Billion smackeroos. As an appreciation, they slapped you with another work stoppage a few years after.

Now' there is outrage. Another season is lost. Everyone says that they will walk away from the game. A few say they will get even.

Let me tell you what will happen, after the Replacement players are gone and the regular players are back, you will all go and fill up the arena and buy tons of jerseys. Yes, you will give them another 6 billion in profit.

Six years from now, the NHL and PA will lock it out again and decide how to divide the loot, and round and round we go........because you are all addicted to the game.


There is more to it then that.

The NHL might be more then happy to do the same thing. But will the Sponsors put up with it? What about TV deals? There is plenty to lose regardless.

And I suppose the markets with a lot of hockey fans might turn out okay, but there are quite a few markets where you may not get those fans to return because the interest just isnt there. The NHL is a gate driven league and if you lose just 10% of that it could be catastrophic.

There seems to be way too much to lose and not enough to gain if this is some kind of strategy.
  • 0

#2823 Hobble

Hobble

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,675 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 07

Posted 17 November 2012 - 07:53 PM

:lol: at Bill Clinton mediating the negotiations!
  • 0

#2824 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,869 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 17 November 2012 - 08:34 PM

from:

Help us Ed Snider, you’re our only NHL lockout hope

"When it comes to labor negotiations, league rules require a a vote of 75 percent of governors to oppose the commissioner's recommendation. That means Bettman has absolute power, so long as he has eight out of 30 owners to block any hostile movement against him. Bettman actually needs only seven owners to support him, since the league owns the Phoenix franchise

There have been many educated guesses over the last few weeks as to which franchises are a part of this "hardline" bargaining group of Bettman's staunchest allies, but my list first included Boston, Minnesota, Calgary, Washington, Dallas, Philadelphia and Anaheim, in addition to Phoenix."


Unbelievable if in fact true - Minnesota one of the hardline 7? They are the club that made the biggest joke of the process in free agent frenzy, just before this lockout. Dropped about 200 million over a quarter century on two UFAs and then play hardline?
  • 0

#2825 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,869 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 17 November 2012 - 08:53 PM

If the article is the full story and all NHL teams are really making undisclosed profits then my question would be 'why do acknowledged, profitable teams, contribute to a stabilization fund'? Why don't they tell Florida to suck rocks when they ask for support? When both sides talk about the key points of disagreement, verification of HRR is not one of them. Undisclosed revenue would divide the owners quicker than anything the NHLPA could do. If the quoted article is the full story then I would think it is the key point that should be pursued by the NHLPA. Doesn't the NHLPA have any pull with the Ontario Teacher's Pension Fund? After all they owned the TO Laffers, they should know the inside story. Brother to brother they should spill the beans.

Most on here will agree that the NHL is not a conventional business or combination of businesses. Successfull franchises need competition to fill their venues and the Florida's provide that. I think the season is toast but no matter when a new agreement is signed the NHLPA and NHL had better have a verifiable method of identifying legit expenses and revenue or this dispute will be repeated.


I found it truly bizarre that the NHL/ownership group claimed that the necessity of this lockout was based upon the inability of certain weaker markets to turn a profit - and yet they stepped into these negotiations proposing a significantly smaller revenue sharing pool than the NHLPA/players proposed. The optics of that were way off, to put it mildly.

Yet they claimed to have some sort of unanimity and solid basis of unity in favour of this lockout.

Bettman has proceeded as if he isn't really required to make sense - it's been like one big continuous chest-puffing bluff - and yet it is clear how much money the real power players in the NHL stand to lose, and that that fact really did not give the NHL owners the leverage they needed to make like an uncompromising, long-term lockout strategy made any sense at all.

Bizarre. Shocking really. Would be fascinating to see how this truly materialized, because it looks like a whole room full of billionaires with a remarkably bad strategy from where I sit.
  • 0

#2826 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,056 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 17 November 2012 - 09:02 PM

Anyone else feeling the vibe, that maybe we might be okay with this dragging on a little longer, as long as Bettman gets tossed out? I always despised the guy, but I think this time he might have truly dug his own grave and the timing is right for a new commish. I honestly think that Daly would do much better. I'm hoping the owners think so as well.
  • 0

#2827 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,217 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 17 November 2012 - 09:23 PM

Just Go Away, Gary

News broke last night that embattled NHL commissioner Gary Bettman suggested a two-week moratorium from lockout negotiations with the NHLPA. The reason? Things had just become too heated. I guess that's what happens when you cancel six weeks of games and Thanksgiving is looming — maybe there's a little more urgency, you say some things you regret, people take those things personally, and suddenly you're threatening each other in monotone Canadian accents. Why don't you go to hell, eh? But canceling another two weeks just so everyone can cool off? Who does this? And you wonder why hockey fans were regarding Bettman's lockout leadership the same way you'd act if you were watching a baby play with a chainsaw.
Oh God … wait, is that on … OH GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is a guy who recently earned the following e-mail from a Minneapolis reader named Peter Gilbertson: "How does one impeach a sports commissioner? How can a commissioner on the verge of losing two NHL seasons in one decade, with four work stoppages during his tenure, continue to keep his job? He is a failure. For the fans, the players, and the game this needs to be done — Bettman should be impeached."
First of all, how much fun would it be to impeach Gary Bettman? Can't you see him sweating and stammering through the hearings as various politicians rehashed an endless list of mistakes over the years? "So you allowed John Spano to buy the Islanders without any money because … why?" That would be the best courtroom TV since the O.J. trial. But if we voted for sports commissioners (with fans, players and owners each splitting one-third of the overall vote) or put term limits on their tenures (10 years max), then we wouldn't have to ask questions like "How does one impeach a sports commissioner?"
Gary Bettman should have lost his job years and years ago. He kept it for the same reason David Stern plans to hang around for three decades, Bud Selig will still be running baseball when he's 80, and Roger Goodell will probably get a contract extension even after he handled the Saints debacle so badly that he had to bring back his old boss to fix the situation for him. (Yes, we covered these commissioners in this space last month.) But Bettman's supernatural ability to keep ruining hockey is almost unparalleled — after I joked recently for the umpteenth time about Bettman's former boss, David Stern, planting him in the NHL to ruin hockey, a few readers e-mailed me wondering if that could be legitimately true. What other explanation could there be? How could someone be this bad for this long?
The case against Bettman in one sentence: The NHL sacrificed an entire season so they could reimagine their entire salary structure … and only seven years later, that "reimagining" went so poorly that they might have to sacrifice a second season because they need a mulligan.
That's all you need to know. I didn't even need to bring up the league's botched television deals, overexpansion, poorly picked markets, belated acknowledgement of the concussion epidemic, or more incredibly, how they stupidly forgot to limit the length of contracts. This is a commissioner who fought like hell to create a hard cap, and after it finally got approved, was too dense to remember to include a rule that contracts couldn't last longer than five or six years (like what the NBA does). That led to team after team circumventing that cap by giving out guaranteed deals lasting as long as 15 YEARS. Really, didn't see that loophole getting exploited, Gary? Never came up as you were hashing things out?
Imagine your neighbor knocking down his house, then rebuilding it from scratch as his family lived in a hotel. You had to listen to the construction guys hammering, sawing and banging for a solid year. Finally the house goes up, the family moves back in … and seven years later, suddenly they're knocking the house down again. You ask the neighbor what happened and he says, "Yeah, sorry about that — we screwed up when we rebuilt the house, had too many flaws, we needed to do it over again."
Naturally, you say, "Why didn't you figure out all that stuff before you rebuilt the house the first time?"
He says, "Because I'm an idiot, that's why."
And then, there's an awkward silence before he walks away, as you don't know whether he's kidding or not.
That's Gary Bettman.
We should mention that, in a vacuum, he's correct about this particular lockout: The league's financial model (already a mess because we have too many NHL teams, which is 100 percent Bettman's fault, but whatever) can't be sustained with such meager television revenue. Hockey depends on its attendance and the unwavering devotion of its zealous fan base. From a television standpoint, the league will always be handicapped by its lack of marketable stars (the biggest reason it can't command anything close to the NBA's television deal), a glaring problem that I noticed during my first year owning Kings season tickets, when I realized that it didn't really matter who the Kings played from night to night. Sure, you always enjoy seeing the Malkins and Ovechkins, but it's a much different mind-set from, say, LeBron playing the Clippers. Anyone who went to Wednesday's Heat-Clippers game was thinking I'm going to see LeBron!, because they knew he was playing 90 percent of the game. In hockey, you don't say "I'm going to see Ovechkin!," because he might play one-third of the game if you're lucky (and might not make a single meaningful play).
It's the ultimate team sport, and really, that's the best thing about hockey — there's a guaranteed level of entertainment night after night after night that transcends star power. Everyone skates hard, everyone throws their bodies around, everyone plays well together, everyone gives a crap. It's a blue-collar game that happens to be tailor-made for the ADD generation. That's why kids love going to hockey games so much, and that's why my daughter is so bitter right now (fast-forward to the last minute of this podcast). Throw in what hockey means to Canada (where they love hockey like we love football, basketball and baseball combined), some of the NHL's American hotbeds (Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Philly, Los Angeles, etc.) and the underrated fact that hockey players are the least entitled professional athletes on the planet … and it's almost impossible to screw this up, right?
So how do we end up with a salary system that allows Minnesota to spend $196 million on Ryan Suter and Zach Parise? And that's not to pick on those guys — you could build a decent playoff team around them as long as your goalie didn't stink. Just know that nobody is saying the words, "Suter and Parise are coming to town tonight!" It's just not that kind of league. You go to hockey games to see quality teams, not quality players. There's a fixed level of entertainment. Suter and Parise shouldn't make that much money because hockey players shouldn't make that much money. It has nothing to do with them.
If you think of the cable television model, it makes more sense — channels like AMC, FX and Showtime realized that the quality of their shows matter a thousand times more than the "star power" of the actors on those shows. Yeah, AMC could have spent an extra $15 million per season on Keanu Reeves to play Rick in The Walking Dead, but why would they? People watch that show because they want to see people kill zombies. So they went the other way — cheaper actors, cheaper locations, more money on extras and special effects. Same for Showtime's hit Homeland,which features only one star (Claire Danes, who certainly isn't making Parise/Suter money) surrounded by well-casted actors, including a few good ones whom you'd recognize from other shows (including Mandy Patinkin, a fairly famous name in his own right) and certainly weren't expensive. You might recognize that same blueprint from Breaking Bad, Dexter, Californication,Shameless, Game of Thrones, Sons of Anarchy and about 10 other cable shows. And by the way, did you know ANYONE on Mad Men when that show launched other than Ashton Kutcher's old girlfriend with the weird first name?
On cable television, the showrunner and the writing matter more than anything else. In hockey, the sport and the fans matter more than anything else. It doesn't matter who Minnesota's third-best player is any more or less than it matters who plays Mike on Homeland. Fans are coming, regardless. So why overpay players, jack up ticket prices and price out those fans when you don't have to? Wasn't that what the last lockout was about? Wasn't the league supposed to be regaining control of its broken salary structure? How are we back here seven years later battling the exact same problem?
For that and that alone, Gary Bettman needs to step down. No, we can't impeach him. Yes, we can continue to excoriate him. He's the worst commissioner in sports history, and really, it's going to remain that way unless Roger Goodell extends the NFL's season to 20 games, adds Wednesday- and Friday-night football to the schedule, pays a hitman to murder Jonathan Vilma, and gets outed for having a heated affair with his biographer, Peter King … and even then, I'd probably still give the edge to Bettman.
If you want to talk about moratoriums, Gary, here's a better idea — step down and give us a lifetime moratorium. From you.


  • 3

#2828 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,056 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 17 November 2012 - 09:30 PM

If you want to talk about moratoriums, Gary, here's a better idea — step down and give us a lifetime moratorium. From you.



Works for me. How many fans would reconsider if he stepped down?
  • 0

#2829 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,635 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 17 November 2012 - 09:55 PM

Thanks for posting that article, The Bookie. Made me actually laugh out loud repeatedly!
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2830 Navyblue

Navyblue

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,199 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 10

Posted 17 November 2012 - 11:08 PM

says the guy who's current status update on CDC is


So you aren't articulate then?

Edited by Navyblue, 17 November 2012 - 11:30 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#2831 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,217 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 18 November 2012 - 12:40 AM

Thanks for posting that article, The Bookie. Made me actually laugh out loud repeatedly!


You're welcome. Looks like I'm getting my wish, Grantland said that with the current absurdity of the NHL lockout they'll be doing regular (daily I hope) coverage.

It would be ironic if the crapshow soap opera of a lockout was the cause of hockey finally breaking the mainstream down south.
  • 0

#2832 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,217 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 18 November 2012 - 02:03 AM

An interesting followup to the Edmonton Journal piece I posted yesterday about the accounting going on in Florida, this time by way of Dallas (I know right?):

Creative Business Structure, Profitability, The NHL And The Florida Panthers

One of the main arguments the NHL has put forth during the ongoing lockout is that in order for all 30 franchises to be financially healthy, expenses have to be capped at an even lower level than they are right now.
After all, several franchises appear to be struggling on the business side of the equation. While these names have changed over the decades, ranging from teams like Detroit Red Wings in the 1980s, the Edmonton Oilers in the late 1990s, the Pittsburgh Penguins and Boston Bruins in the early 2000s and the Florida Panthers and your Dallas Stars recently, the point the NHL wants to make is the same. They want 30 healthy franchises, and they can't do that without much more cost control because the lower revenue-generating teams, whoever those might be, need financial protection.
But how do we know which teams are actually struggling?
Most of the NHL teams are completely private business entities, which means no one has access to their financial books other than the auditors approved in the last round of CBA Armageddon. Forbes puts together annual estimations of net profit and losson its website, but those are far from official. And as is illustrated by the Florida Panthers, those numbers do not account for the profits of the umbrella business that often own the NHL teams.
Jonathan Willis, who blogs over at The Cult of Hockey blog hosted by the Edmonton Journal, did some great legwork on the business structure and possible profitability of the corporation that owns the Florida Panthers, one of the teams that has been used as a constant example of a franchise that is in dire financial straits and desperately needs a new CBA to survive.
Willis pulled together several documents from Broward County, which owns BankAtlantic Center, Forbes and the South Florida Sun-Sentinal to show how while the Panthers might be losing money each year (based on the Forbes estimations), they are almost certainly driving the overall profitability of their parent company.
Here are his key points.


Interestingly, the picture that Forbes paints is at odds with that presented by Broward County. Broward County was primarily responsible for the construction of the Panthers’ arena, and as a result gets to look at the books of the organization. According to the county auditor, the organization made $117.4 million in profit between 1998 and 2012
How does a team losing $7.5 million per season rack up profits in excess of $100 million? There are a few reasons, and to find them we need to dig a little.


Now, I want to make one thing clear - the organization that made $117.4 million in profit between 1998 and 2012 is neither the Florida Panthers nor their parent company, Sunrise Sports & Entertainment. The organization that made those profits is the aptly named Arena Operating Company, which is contracted by the city to run the BankAtlantic Center.
Because AOC contracts with a public entity, they have to open their books to government auditors. The most recent audit apparently happened by Broward County in 2010 and is found here.
AOC is a sister company to the Panthers, and both are owned by SSE, which is illustrated on a pretty little graphic on page 3. Cliff Viner, the Panthers owner, is the chairman and CEO of SSE. The executives of AOC are unclear.
[Editor's note: The article originally mistakenly referred to Michael Yormark, the Panthers president, as team owner. Yormark is the president and COO of SSE as well as Panthers president.]
When Willis is referring to a team making $117.4 million in profit over 15 years, he's referring to AOC, which receives revenue from hockey and non-hockey events including suite sales, sponsorship agreements, parking, concessions and so-forth. On the expenses side of the ledger, the company is responsible for the operating expenses of the arena itself during events.
How much of that revenue is driven by the Panthers? That's a good question. Any number of concerts, shows and other events use the modern multi-purpose arenas when their main tenants are idle or on the road.
But the audit also gives us a clue as to how important the Panthers are to AOC's profitability. I'll let Willis explain with a small alteration to his original wording:


I expected to see that the Panthers were making good money on their arena deal; I was surprised to find that what was far and away [AOC's] worst fiscal year coincided with the NHL lockout. If the Panthers were losing money but the arena business was profitable, we would not expect to see a major drop in[AOC] revenue in 2005; instead we saw a significant dip. (Note: judging by the email commentary I’ve received, this point is being missed by many readers. If the Panthers were acting as a drag on revenue, the 2005 lockout year should have been quite profitable for SSE; instead it was easily their worst fiscal year of the decade – JW.)


According to the audit, AOC made a profit of $6.5 million in 2003-04. That number dropped to $1 million in 2004-05 as the lockout wiped out the entire season then jumped back to $11.7 million when hockey returned in 2005-06. Some of those dips and spikes could be related to concerts or other large, one-year events, but the drastic drop in the only year that the NHL didn't play in that date range is fairly convincing.
So what does that mean for SSE's (and Viner's) profitability? That's hard to say. There are no exact numbers out there on the actual finances of the Panthers, be that HRR (which wouldn't necessarily reflect the money on the Panthers side of the business ledger) or open books. There are also no numbers for revenue or losses from the parent company of SSE itself.
But lets use the best numbers we have - the Forbes estimation of Panthers losses combined with the audited reports of AOC's profitability.
The numbers start to line up in 2008, where AOC had an $8.25 million profit and Forbes estimated the Panthers had a $9.4 million loss. That would mean an overall loss for SSE of $1.25 million that year which again, assumes there's no complicating numbers from the SSE part of the ledger and that the Forbes numbers are accurate.
In 2007, Forbes estimated the Panthers lost $7.1 million while AOC reported a profit of $9.5 million. That would mean, with the assumptions above, a $2.4 million profit for SSE. In 2006, Forbes estimated a $1.9 million loss while AOC had huge profits of $11.7 million. That's $9.8 million in pure profit for SSE in a year the Panthers themselves reported a loss.
So what does this all mean in the big picture? Essentially, that you can't trust the numbers the NHL (or the PA, for that matter) feeds you about team finances. The business that own and operate NHL teams are huge financial conglomerates with complicated accounting and organizational structure that are designed to maximize profits, tax breaks and long-term investment growth. And that's before we get to the point that the huge money to be made in professional sports is not in the year-to-year operating profit but in the exponential growth of the sale price a decade or two down the road.
The business structure of the Panthers is not unique. When the Stars were owned by Tom Hicks, for example, they were actually owned but Southwest Sports Group. The Boston Bruins are owned by Delaware North Companies. The St. Louis Blues are owned by SLB Acquisition Holdings LLC
This article is not to say that there are no teams losing money - that's impossible to prove and almost certainly false. But whenever you start talking about the finances of these hockey teams, remember that it's not as easy as Craig Leipold (chairman of Minnesota Sports & Entertainment which owns the Minnesota Wild) telling you how much money he lost or the San Jose Sharks, owned by San Jose Sports & Entertainment Enterprises, saying despite record crowds, they're still in the red.
I'm usually not a conspiracy theorist, but talking about team and league finances is the perfect time to live by that old X-Files axiom:
Trust no one.


  • 1

#2833 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 18 November 2012 - 07:38 AM

Well they have lost big money, to the point now where there is no owner, and the NHL just keep pouring money into every year that they will never make back in that market.

The timing is critical like you said, but I think the timing is now and has been since they lost there owner.

If the Jameison thing can come through and he can own the team then great, they can stay in PHX (even though personally I think they should have been moved already)

But if it doesn't, then they should move. PHX only got 4 games on NBC, nowhere near what other major market NHL teams got that actually have good fan bases.

And for Seattle the timing seems right too, they have people interested in owning a team, the Arena is built I think (or almost done, im not sure I haven't really been following it closely) so things are ready from there side.

As for the playoff thing, I mean c'mon, its the playoffs, anybody will go in the playoffs. An I'm an example of that with the Lions, I will rarley go to a regular season Lions game (I have only been to 1 in my life) but I am probably going to go to the Western Final tommorow because I really want to see a big playoff game, and because it's just the hot thing right now sportswise. And that's the exact same thing that happened with PHX in the playoffs last season.

They have had good playoff teams, they won the division, and went to the 3rd Round and if they stay in Phoenix they won't sell out a game next year I guarantee it.

And personally I think it would be better for NBC in Seattle aswell, and surely the team would be much more profitable and successful witha good fan base behind them.

Once this CBA is settled that is something the NHL has to make a big priority, I'm not sure how it makes sense bussiness wise to be continuously losing money like that for no good reason.

Moving from PHX might become a reality but I brought them up as the most obvious example. Obviously the NHL is not totally intrangient or Atlanta would still exist and not be in Winnipeg. Nashville might be a good example of the NHL business plan in action. The franchise seems to have turned the corner with steady crowds and more stable ownership.

On the reverse side, all this could blow up in their faces if the USA economy tanks again ala 2008. It could force a re-evaluation that does in fact send PHX to Seattle. As a Canuck fan I would love that!
  • 0

#2834 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 18 November 2012 - 08:17 AM

I found it truly bizarre that the NHL/ownership group claimed that the necessity of this lockout was based upon the inability of certain weaker markets to turn a profit - and yet they stepped into these negotiations proposing a significantly smaller revenue sharing pool than the NHLPA/players proposed. The optics of that were way off, to put it mildly.

Yet they claimed to have some sort of unanimity and solid basis of unity in favour of this lockout.

Bettman has proceeded as if he isn't really required to make sense - it's been like one big continuous chest-puffing bluff - and yet it is clear how much money the real power players in the NHL stand to lose, and that that fact really did not give the NHL owners the leverage they needed to make like an uncompromising, long-term lockout strategy made any sense at all.

Bizarre. Shocking really. Would be fascinating to see how this truly materialized, because it looks like a whole room full of billionaires with a remarkably bad strategy from where I sit.

You could be very right about all this. The owner's proposed smaller revenue sharing pool suggests their desire that more revenue stays with the team rather than paid out to the players.

It is in my nature to respect the concept that business does react to the conditions that they do business in and that they do it logically. Accepting the fact that the NHL is not a conventional free market and that ownership has to wave some of the 'rules' in their operations promotes uncertainty.

Both Fehr and Bettman have presented strategies that have been accepted by their constituencies. They are faced with divergent interests within their own groups. Is it easier to maintain cohesion within a group of 700 vs 30? To an extent some take comfort in thinking ownership will falter first because the reality exists that they control the game. No matter what the demands are from either side of the table the bottom line is the players are losing more money than ownership with each day the dispute goes on. The ownership negociating committee might be a power within the NHL but I have little doubt that if they lost the confidence of the majority there would be changes.

Another aspect of this dispute is the realization by ownership that the 2004 CBA did not get the job done. The NHLPA of that day was adamant of the doom and gloom for their membership in being forced to sign that deal. As it turned out they did very well with the deal and have actually argued to maintain the essence of it in a new CBA. Neither party anticipated the revenue growth that the NHL experienced. Now you have two idiotic predictions of sales growth by the NHL of 5% and the NHLPA of 7% per year for the next 6 to 7 years. That is like governments who routinely forecast GDP growth of 3.5%. These projections have little basis in fact but have a lot to do with creating numbers that support their wishes. There are to many varibles to forecast that far out which makes this process BS. I was very surprised to see the NHL come out with a 5% growth rate. Because of 2004 I expect the NHL ownership to be far less flexible in their demands. I put little credence in what reporters write about what an owner said or for what an owner says publically for that matter. Sometimes defending their image within a community accounts for such statements.
  • 0

#2835 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 18 November 2012 - 08:33 AM

An interesting followup to the Edmonton Journal piece I posted yesterday about the accounting going on in Florida, this time by way of Dallas (I know right?):

Creative Business Structure, Profitability, The NHL And The Florida Panthers



According to the audit, AOC made a profit of $6.5 million in 2003-04. That number dropped to $1 million in 2004-05 as the lockout wiped out the entire season then jumped back to $11.7 million when hockey returned in 2005-06.....


There is a good chance in which we have a situation of a journalist not being able to understand accounting and financing relationships (it happens often).

I am making an assumption here because I haven't seen the books. However, it seems to me that AOC would have made less money that year simply because they didn't charge rent to their number one tenant - the Panthers.


Then the journalist goes on to combine AOC profits with Panthers losses to get net profits. Yes, the ultimate owner is making money after combining non-hockey operations with the Panthers operation results.
  • 1
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#2836 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,876 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 18 November 2012 - 08:50 AM

from:

Help us Ed Snider, you’re our only NHL lockout hope

"When it comes to labor negotiations, league rules require a a vote of 75 percent of governors to oppose the commissioner's recommendation. That means Bettman has absolute power, so long as he has eight out of 30 owners to block any hostile movement against him. Bettman actually needs only seven owners to support him, since the league owns the Phoenix franchise

There have been many educated guesses over the last few weeks as to which franchises are a part of this "hardline" bargaining group of Bettman's staunchest allies, but my list first included Boston, Minnesota, Calgary, Washington, Dallas, Philadelphia and Anaheim, in addition to Phoenix."


Unbelievable if in fact true - Minnesota one of the hardline 7? They are the club that made the biggest joke of the process in free agent frenzy, just before this lockout. Dropped about 200 million over a quarter century on two UFAs and then play hardline?


How can Phoenix be hardline? They don't have an owner! Unless Bettman is de facto owner until it's sold?
  • 0
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#2837 Hobble

Hobble

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,675 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 07

Posted 18 November 2012 - 09:26 AM

Calgary is hard line? That seems kinda random.
  • 0

#2838 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 18 November 2012 - 09:31 AM

There is a good chance in which we have a situation of a journalist not being able to understand accounting and financing relationships (it happens often).

I am making an assumption here because I haven't seen the books. However, it seems to me that AOC would have made less money that year simply because they didn't charge rent to their number one tenant - the Panthers.


Then the journalist goes on to combine AOC profits with Panthers losses to get net profits. Yes, the ultimate owner is making money after combining non-hockey operations with the Panthers operation results.

EBITA or not? The mystery deepens.
  • 0

#2839 EvoLu7ioN

EvoLu7ioN

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,816 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 10

Posted 18 November 2012 - 10:42 AM

Let the players dog paddle around that life jacket a while longer. Eventually they'll figure it out and grab on. Can't dog paddle in deep water forever.

Edited by EvoLu7ioN, 18 November 2012 - 10:43 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#2840 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 18 November 2012 - 11:15 AM

There is a good chance in which we have a situation of a journalist not being able to understand accounting and financing relationships (it happens often).

I am making an assumption here because I haven't seen the books. However, it seems to me that AOC would have made less money that year simply because they didn't charge rent to their number one tenant - the Panthers.


Then the journalist goes on to combine AOC profits with Panthers losses to get net profits. Yes, the ultimate owner is making money after combining non-hockey operations with the Panthers operation results.

While I agree that's a good possibility, it's at least an exercise in realizing just how owners separate their teams and their business related to it. Teams are often under a parent sports company, which is just one of the businesses an owner might have. That parent company will have other companies underneath it, designed to keep profits separate to magnify the team's loss. That doesn't mean the owner is losing money as a result of owning a sports franchise.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#2841 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,635 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 18 November 2012 - 11:39 AM

There is a good chance in which we have a situation of a journalist not being able to understand accounting and financing relationships (it happens often).

I am making an assumption here because I haven't seen the books. However, it seems to me that AOC would have made less money that year simply because they didn't charge rent to their number one tenant - the Panthers.


Then the journalist goes on to combine AOC profits with Panthers losses to get net profits. Yes, the ultimate owner is making money after combining non-hockey operations with the Panthers operation results.


Why wouldn't they have charged the Panthers rent for the lost season? It wasn't know from day 1 of the lockout it would last as long as it did, so it seems presumptuous for them to have released their hold on the arena they would need whenever hockey resumed. Furthermore, what kind of lease would allow a tenant a year off paying simply because they couldn't use it for reasons unrelated to the venue itself?

I absolutely understand your point about the accounting being extremely complicated, but I also see the value in illustrating how they shuffle things around a la a shell game, making it next to impossible to know the truth. That is particularly true being that Forbes likely uses HRR to determine revenue, despite the fact that that number does not include all of the team's revenue and has multiple deductions for costs already taken off. If costs are then applied to that number, it will likely result in some double deductions for the same costs against a lower than actual revenue amount. Therein lies the problem. HRR is designed to limit what players are entitled to share in, not to accurately represent what the team actually makes, even before considering the other layers of companies involved.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2842 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,869 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 18 November 2012 - 11:43 AM

Calgary is hard line? That seems kinda random.


Yeah - it's a strange crew.
Perhaps Calgary, like Minnesota, is banking on a massive reneg - after all, they've spent a lot of money recklessly - Bouwmeester, Stajan, Cammalleri - add their latest Cervenka and Wideman signings (Hudler?) and perhaps, like Bettman himself, they need to be rescued from their own decisions by resorting to CBA hardlining.

As far as I'm concerned, Minnesota (in addition to their free agent frenzy, they also have Heatley and Koivu at over 14 million in cap hit), Calgary, and Phoenix/Bettman are in no position whatsoever to be hardlining - they have made as many weak and suspect decisions as anyone. Washington? Backstrom at 6.7 until 2020, Ovechkin at 9.5 until 2021... Just don't see how any of these teams are in a position to hardline.
  • 0

#2843 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,635 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 18 November 2012 - 01:07 PM

Note: The bolding is mine.

Union: We won’t decertify

By LARRY BROOKS


The option of decertifying as a union was presented to the players in at least a quasi-formal fashion for the first time on Wednesday during a conference call that was open to the full membership of the NHLPA, Slap Shots has learned.

We’re told Don and Steve Fehr outlined three options for the players in the face of the NHL’s ongoing militancy as follows, and in no particular order: 1) Decertification; 2) Capitulation; 3) Continued negotiations in an attempt to end the owners’ lockout.

Sources report that few players expressed interest in opening Doors 1 or 2. Rather, an overwhelming number of players on the call directed union leadership to continue on the path through Door No. 3.

The players were told opting for decertification would not merely represent a legal technicality, it would in fact mean the players would no longer be negotiating as a unified group; indeed, decertification would mean the union would be disbanded.

There was little appetite to adopt that route, though talk of decertification — which presumably would be followed by filing of antitrust action in the U.S and filings in Canada, where labor laws differ throughout the provinces — will inevitably become louder and a more acceptable option for the players if the league continues to stonewall through next month.

We’ll all have a better idea where matters stand once the league and union reconvene in New York tomorrow afternoon.

* If the season is canceled, the Maple Leafs will lose approximately $100 million, the Rangers at least $50 million and the Canadiens somewhat less than that.

Yet not one of these ownership groups is represented on the NHL negotiating committee
. And while Toronto GM Brian Burke is on the committee, we’re told the league’s agenda is being plotted all but exclusively by Canceler-in-Chief Gary Bettman and Boston owner Jeremy Jacobs, the hawkish chairman of the Board of Governors.

Indeed, according to one trustworthy individual who attended the negotiating session in New York on Nov. 9, Calgary owner Murray Edwards was at one point silenced by Bettman just a moment after Jacobs leaned over and whispered into the commissioner’s ear.

It is unfathomable that league owners who understand the ramifications of extending this senseless lockout have not demanded Bettman call a Board of Governors meeting for a full airing of the issues.

* Let’s say the parties are separated by as much as $150 million a year following their latest round of proposals and counters.

The difference is all but impossible to accurately gauge given the apples-to-oranges nature of such a comparison and the spin-doctoring that accompanies every exchange — league documents released on Friday, for example, account for a truncated season in the revenue column but a full season in the “make-whole” expense column — but let’s say it’s that much.

That $150 million becomes $5 million per team. And that is actually nothing. It’s nothing because most teams will never spend that $5 million a year. No team is mandated to spend to the cap, only to the floor. Most teams never come within $5 million of the cap. They’re arguing over money they will not only never spend, but never will actually save.

The answer is to drop the floor, either to a percentage of the ceiling, or to $10 million to $12 million below the midpoint as compared to the previous $8 million. The object shouldn’t be to limit how much a team might spend, but to limit how much a team must spend.

It’s astonishing neither side has focused on that issue.

* Here’s what I think: If the NHL were to present a plan under which the Hockey Related Revenue split falls to 50/50 in year three of an eight-year CBA with a transition plan to accommodate cap teams and eliminate front-loaded contracts, I think we’d be no more than a couple of weeks away from a settlement.

There is no doubt there are a significant number of players waiting for the league to make an offer they can accept. But the league continues to make offers the players cannot in good faith even consider.

The owners’ system demands are word-for-word what they were in the league’s opening July 13 proposal that established the tone of this debate.

If that’s the league’s definition of bargaining, they must be handing out unique law dictionaries over at Proskauer Rose.

If the league insists on going to 50/50 immediately as a requirement for unlocking the doors, that should be part of a system featuring a transition period through 2014-15 in which clubs would be permitted to exceed the cap by paying a luxury tax.

The revenue from luxury taxes — say teams could exceed the cap by up 12.3 percent in 2013-14 and up to, say, 7.5 percent in 2014-15 — would go into revenue-sharing and be distributed under league mandate.

Source: http://www.nypost.co...zE93owdlNyiostL

Edited by poetica, 18 November 2012 - 01:13 PM.

  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2844 Apricot

Apricot

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,679 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 07

Posted 18 November 2012 - 08:07 PM

Phone
  • 0

ahmet-maranki-kayisi-yagi.jpg

Previously known as CanucksRuleAll, CRA or Cantaloupe.



RIP RR, LB, PD. Forever in our hearts <3


#2845 Remy

Remy

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,177 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 08

Posted 18 November 2012 - 10:48 PM

ET

Phone


Home




At the World Juniors is still coming up, but man it's tough to be a Canuck fan right now. We came so, so close to the Cup; it's understandable that last year was not our best, there was just too much to recover from and not enough time to full recuperate (not even emotionally). I expected the team to get back on track this year, especially with our window closing, but it's not looking like we'll get much of a chance. Very sad to see. Besides which, I am also missing non-Canucks hockey. I'm hoping to save up for a new TV next month ... hopefully it's resolved by then.
  • 0

#2846 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

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

Posted 18 November 2012 - 10:58 PM

First Christmas ad... this is depressing, no hockey and the winter is coming.

Anyway, glad to see this thread is no longer hijacked by those who agree with the owners, it's like arguing with a republican over social issues long since established. Frankly it's not a debate, one side is attempting to roll back salaries, negate signed contracts and restrict contractual freedoms fought for back in 2004. The other side has at worse asked for status quo. The bottom line is the players haven't tried to push anything new past the owners, while the owners keep trying to push their agenda down the throat of the players.

So fo the rest of us that are level headed, I have to ask how you think tomorrows negotiations might go? I keep being optimistic in hoping for something to happen, but based on serious meetings last week, and the owners voicing their displeasure with Bettman's attempted moratorium, that things might actually get done. Frankly it is of no substantial benefit for the owners to limit contractual freedoms, be that a year extra on ELC or limiting the length of the contract, the bottom line is the players will be paid even if it takes more contracts to do so. It really just restricts the negotiating power of their GMs. I have to think it's more vendetta than reasoning at this point.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#2847 Brambojoe

Brambojoe

    Comets Prospect

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

Posted 18 November 2012 - 11:19 PM

I think the players will back off on some of the contracting rights - it's not as immediate a concern as the fact that they are not playing 'right now'. I think both the owners are working towards a Dec start so that the sponsors can enjoy the rush of rabid fans back to the game just in time for christmas. I'm not sure where the players are at except that if current contracts are more or less honored they'd probably as a group rather be playing than not.
  • 0

#2848 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,349 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 18 November 2012 - 11:25 PM

I hope they come closer together on the make hole provision, to me that's the Key to saving the season.

I'm not all that optimistic though, trying to make a prediction on that is like trying to predict what will 20 years from today, impossible.

I don't have any expectations that something positive will happen, but i'm just going to hope for the best.
  • 0

zackass.png


#2849 Mauii

Mauii

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 19 November 2012 - 12:57 AM

The players concerns that they may very well be looking at another lock out after this CBA is done are very real because quite simply the NHL will likely be faced with the the same problems that has driven and prolonged this lockout. The CBA should include a provision preventing any future prolonged lockouts upon the expiration of the CBA ie. if an agreement cannot be reached 2 months prior to the start of season, the matter will go to arbitration (insert standard procedural arbitration clauses), and include a provision to begin negotiations 4 months prior to the expiration date, and provide audited statements 6 months prior to the expiration date. In other words insert time guidlines to provide some certainties to both parties that the CBA will be negotiated in good faith and in a timely manner. One has to wonder if the NHL is relying on lockouts to fix the financial pickle some teams got themselves into in effect compromising their ability to negotiate the CBA in good faith and potentially contravening any labour laws. The NHL needs to recognize that the problem has not been with the players or their salaries/ contracts but with the existing structure and operations/management of the teams/contracts. The league needs to look at addressing and alleviating the root of the problems ie. suggest internal team caps like the Canucks, and not rely on a band aide solutions by having lockouts and not pay its players to fix its financial woes every single time they have an opportunity to lock them out. This is poor business management and is not good for business nor an effective way of running a professional sports league by hindering what has been successful for the NHL at the expense of a few poorly managed or unsustainable teams. Look to the successful teams and get their input and follow their model. Unless the root of the problems are addressed we'll be revisiting this problem over and over again. You're only as good as your weakest link.
  • 1
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

#2850 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,114 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 19 November 2012 - 01:13 AM

Anyway, glad to see this thread is no longer hijacked by those who agree with the owners, it's like arguing with a republican over social issues long since established. Frankly it's not a debate, one side is attempting to roll back salaries, negate signed contracts and restrict contractual freedoms fought for back in 2004. The other side has at worse asked for status quo. The bottom line is the players haven't tried to push anything new past the owners, while the owners keep trying to push their agenda down the throat of the players.


Just to see if I understand you correctly, do you think the old CBA was fine and they should have just rolled it over for another 5 or 10 years?
  • 0
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.