Whose Side are You On? NHL vs Players
- Thread starter SerengetiGuide
- Start date
fishhunter327
Member
They players deserve every penny.... They're the lucky few who made it....
x2 It's a free market,the players bargin a contract on their individual merits. Isn,t this capitalism at it,s finest.That,s how all these billionaires made their money.
Dave S
Active Member
There is no way the owners in the strong hockey markets are "not making anything back on their investment".
I'm sure these investment type owners would expect anyone else that signs a business contract to honor it. Just saying.
Aces
Well-Known Member
I would say that more than half the teams would not be classified as strong hockey markets
fishhunter327
Member
Yes I agree with you again.So if I,m following this right your saying thats the players fault?
Aces
Well-Known Member
Oh really, Mr Holmes ??
Kurt Badenhausen, Forbes Staff
The NHL's Problem: Only Three Teams Are Making Real Money
Kurt Badenhausen, Forbes StaffThese are Forbes estimates on the financials.
The NHL locked out its players Saturday night at midnight when its collective bargaining agreement expired. It is the league’s fourth work stoppage in the last 20 years. Like every stoppage, this one is about money and how to divvy up what is now a $3.3 billion pie.
If you are looking for comparisons among sports leagues, think NBA and not NFL, which both had lockouts over the past 14 months. The NFL lockout had only a single preseason game cancelled, while NBA owners lost 20% of their regular season and had to pack in the remaining 80% of games in five months. The NHL is scheduled to begin its regular season October 11 and that date is in serious jeopardy.
LA Kings, Florida Panthers Have The Most To Lose From An NHL Lockout
Chris Smith
Forbes Staff
Photos: In Pictures: Hockey's Most Valuable Teams The NHL’s problem is the widespread disparity in profits for its 30 teams. We estimated that 18 teams lost money during the 2010-11 season in our annual look at the business of hockey. Several other teams barely eked out a profit, but the league’s most flush teams made a killing. The Toronto Maple Leafs, New York Rangers and Montreal Canadiens had an operating profit (in the sense of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) of $171 million combined. The other 27 NHL teams lost a collective $44 million. If you add the Vancouver Canucks and Edmonton Oilers to the fat cats ledger, profits hit $212 million with the remaining 25 teams posting a loss of $86 million.
The concentration of wealth at the top is similar in the NBA. The three most profitable teams during the 2010-11 season, New York Knicks, Chicago Bulls and Cleveland Cavaliers (a 1-year anomaly where the team sold out its arena with a cut-rate payroll ahead of LeBron James skipping town), earned $167 million. The total represented 96% of the league’s estimated profits of $175 million. The NBA tripled revenue sharing in its new CBA to help prop up small market teams.
Why did the NFL settle with its players before any regular season games were lost? Look at the numbers. The NFL’s richest teams, Dallas Cowboys, New England Patriots and Washington Redskins, earned a staggering $454 million last season. Yet, that total represented just 35% of the NFL’s $1.3 billion in total operating profit. The NFL cut back its supplemental revenue sharing program in its latest CBA. It expects $45 billion in new TV agreements to prop up the low revenue teams and keep their profit margins high.
Baseball is the most equitable major U.S. sports league when it comes to sharing the wealth. No wonder it will have had 21 years of labor peace by the time its current CBA expires in 2016. The top three earners last season, Cleveland Indians, Kansas City Royals and Chicago Cubs, made $87 million, which is only 20% of MLB’s $432 million in operating profit. High-revenue teams like the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox are content to run baseball operations with small profits, while making a killing through their ownership stakes in the regional sports networks that broadcast their games.
MLB has the heftiest supplemental revenue sharing system with roughly $400 million changing hands last season from the high revenue teams to the low revenue ones. The Yankees alone kicked in $110 million in revenue sharing in 2011.
The NHL is not in dire financial straits as it was in 2004 when a lockout caused the cancellation of an entire season. It does need the top teams to share more of the wealth if it wants to be healthier financially. The league currently shares about $150 million of its revenue and the league has proposed bumping that up to $190 million. The players association is looking for revenue sharing closer to $250 million. We know why the Maple Leafs, Rangers and Canadiens do not want that much revenue sharing. What about the other 27 teams?
-
Follow me on Facebook or on Twitter
Last edited by a moderator:
PLAYERS. owners signed guys to contracts now they are asking them to role back. nobody twisted the owners arms to sign guys to 10 million dollars a season contacts. the new rules are set to police the child like owners that can't control themselves. if i were a player i would not agree to anything that would see my CONTRACT rate decreased. new rules on all new contacts but honor the old one. the players have said thats there main concern from the beginning and according to what i've been reading 20 of the owners agree but bettman and the other 9 don't (phx has no owner).
regardless of both sides greed or who deserves what they signed a deal just honor it.
what's the difference if a player signed a 5 year deal for 2 million dollars then the next season scores 50 goals and he goes to the owners and says "things have changed i want triple what we agreed to on my contract or i'm not playing". that, essentially what the owners have done to the players.
the stupid owners were signing guys right up till the end of the old cba to try to beat any new rules (length time of contract) ect. they made there beds now they should have to sleep in them.
regardless of both sides greed or who deserves what they signed a deal just honor it.
what's the difference if a player signed a 5 year deal for 2 million dollars then the next season scores 50 goals and he goes to the owners and says "things have changed i want triple what we agreed to on my contract or i'm not playing". that, essentially what the owners have done to the players.
the stupid owners were signing guys right up till the end of the old cba to try to beat any new rules (length time of contract) ect. they made there beds now they should have to sleep in them.
Dave S
Active Member
Defining "profit" of an NHL team is something we couldn't even attempt to do on the outside. Most businesses don't want to record much profit, if any. This includes NHL teams. Reinvested into the clubs, pay outs to share holders, etc. What about all the "free advertising" these owners get for their other ventures? Huge value in that. Look at the names of the arenas......
Bottom line, if these owners didn't do their research before they dropped 100's of millions of their money into a hockey team, maybe they deserve to lose some money. AND maybe they shouldn't have signed those huge contracts if they were losing money!!
I'm not buying the argument that the owners are having troubles financially. The lockout is a great example of how the billionaires of North America are trying to squeeze more out of their employees.
Bottom line, if these owners didn't do their research before they dropped 100's of millions of their money into a hockey team, maybe they deserve to lose some money. AND maybe they shouldn't have signed those huge contracts if they were losing money!!
I'm not buying the argument that the owners are having troubles financially. The lockout is a great example of how the billionaires of North America are trying to squeeze more out of their employees.
Aces
Well-Known Member
WTF????.........what does that prove?....what does that jibberish even say?, thats a completely pathetic attempt at explaining anything.....try again, lmfao..and this time, instead of making a terrible attempt at copying and pasting, try to put it into your own words...and just a hint, the criteria for a strong hockey market isnt only based on profits.....
You never believe anything i would say so i thought i would pass along an article written by a writer with Forbes magazine...the leading business publication in the US. I guess you would know more than those idiots, right?
Aces
Well-Known Member
No, i don't think it's not just the player's fault but they sure aren't helping with their position regarding the CBA.
They are doing just fine financially
Dave S
Active Member
Question 1: totally ok with the amount the players make. They've earned it. They are the reason I watch hockey.
Question 2: The teams with all those empty seats may not be making any money. Maybe those teams need to be in a hockey market..... Quebec, Hamilton, Saskatoon, Halifax, Las Vegas, Seattle. All these cities could support a NHL team.
hambone
Well-Known Member
Quebec!
Seattle would be a good one, I hope it happens.
Saskatoon maybe as well?? It would be painful to see guys getting a tattoo of the hockey club beside their Pilsner and Rider tats though.....
wolf
Well-Known Member
fishhunter327
Member
Holmes your just trying to drive down Louongo.s value so you can snap him up for the crackhawks ,it,s obvious .
hambone
Well-Known Member
totally agree, yes he does deserve another stanley cup.....
Haha good one.
Remember Steve Moore.....
River Rat
Active Member
So true.....the greed of the NHL and NHLPA has kept these people out of work, but no one seems to care?
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
After the last few days, how is anyone not on the NHL's side now? Donald Fehr is a ****ing idiot, arrogant *******.
Similar threads
