New Final Proposal from NHL

Started by calgARI '07, February 01, 2005, 09:06:41 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

calgARI '07

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp;jsessionid=PFJIHFJAKBKH?content=20050201_165545_3304

6years
There is still a cap, but it is not set in stone
4 years players can re-open
There will be healthcare and insurance, but it will fit in to the cap 42m.
55% - revenues
75% qualifying offers
Age 30 Unrestricted

The meeting is tomorrow without Goodenow and Bettman.  As far as I can understand this is a worse proposal than the one the NHLPA rejected last week.  Guess we can still hope.

Greg Berge

It comes down to this: can the players hope to get a better deal by holding out?  If most of the teams are losing money by operating, doesn't that mean they cannot, by definition, be waited out?  And if that's true, doesn't that mean either today, ten months, or ten years from now, the players will eventually have to take whatever the owners offer?

calgARI '07

The players are collectively in fantasy land.  This is by far the best deal they will be able to get.  The longer they wait, the less power they have.

CUlater 89

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:

 The players are collectively in fantasy land.  This is by far the best deal they will be able to get.  The longer they wait, the less power they have.[/q]

With more and more players signing contracts in Europe and with other US leagues, I don't really see them losing power as time goes by.  Many of them will have a source of revenue while the owners do not.  Even if the owners bring in replacement players, are fans going to go to the games?  Are the media obligated to pay full freight in that situation?

This may be the best deal the players can get, but only if you assume they are going to agree at some point to a salary cap.  That's not necessarily the case.

nyc94

The owners may not have revenue but what are their expenses right now?  If they claim they weren't making money before the strike then this isn't much different.  Some teams are  probably losing less money.  The only downside I see is that without games being played an owner would be unable to sell a team.

calgARI '07

The owners don't have any source of revenue?  Well unless you factor in there many other business interests that already bring them far more money than their hockey teams do.  Also, the owners that own their arenas are still making money, moreso than they were when there was a league.  The owners do not care if there is hockey, at least they care a whole lot less than the players.  The players are the ones that dreamed their whole lives of playing in the NHL and are now not.  The owners care about making money which they weren't doing when the NHL was playing.  Most of the players in Europe are making peanuts compared to what they are making in the NHL with the exception of hte players in the Russian Super League.  The half of NHL players not playing in Europe are making crumbs compared to before on the PA lockout fund.

calgARI '07

[Q]nyc94 Wrote:

 The owners may not have revenue but what are their expenses right now?  If they claim they weren't making money before the strike then this isn't much different.  Some teams are  probably losing less money.  The only downside I see is that without games being played an owner would be unable to sell a team.[/q]

Probably around 15 teams are losing less money by not playing than last season when they were.

Greg Berge

The owners really have fun and fold one team every month until the players capitulated. ;-)   In that instance, I'd root for the players to hold out for at least a year. :-D

CowbellGuy

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:
Probably around 15 teams are losing less money by not playing than last season when they were.[/q]
And if you buy that, I've got a bridge to sell...
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy

Harrier

Come on - this is a spohisticated and diverse group of owners, who do not owe their large fortunes to Hockey.  They will ask for the same thing again and again until they get it (like most of the fabulously wealthy).  Those players playing in other leagues are taking a larger pay cut than playing under ANY of the NHL proposed systems with a cap.  Hmmm->  Add to that the fact that owners do not need popular support that players do for additional revenue (endorsements etc.).  I think the owners offers are likely to continue to get worse for the players, not better.


Robb

[Q]nyc94 Wrote:

 The owners may not have revenue but what are their expenses right now?  If they claim they weren't making money before the strike then this isn't much different.  Some teams are  probably losing less money.  The only downside I see is that without games being played an owner would be unable to sell a team.[/q]

Not only can they not sell the team, but the team is losing value.  The longer the lockout continues, the more fans will be alienated, so the less potential the team has to make money in the future, and the less they'd be able to sell the franchise for even once they start playing.

I've never cried for an owner who is losing a couple million a year while the market value (even if it IS based on the bigger fool theory) of the team climbs by 10s of millions per year.  They've now given up these large capital gains in order not to lose cash - it seems penny wise and pound foolish to me.  The owners want to have their cake and eat it, too - dividends AND growth from owning the same stock.  Greed.  Greed.  Greed.
Let's Go RED!

billhoward

It would be awesome to see a merger of capitalism and socialism as the NHL folds and the players form NHL2. They own it, they control it, they pay themselves. They decide if every player is a free agent on Day One or never. They decide how much to fund the farm teams. They decide how much retirement to pay themselves and how much tenure is required for how much money. They decide if they cap their salaries. They decide if the season should be longer (more games, more money) or shorter (longer careers).

It wasn't Dick Allen but it was somebody like him said, of soaring baseball player salaries, "The owners screwed the players for 100 years. By my count, we've got 95 years left and then it's even."

CUlater 89

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:

 The owners don't have any source of revenue?  Well unless you factor in there many other business interests that already bring them far more money than their hockey teams do.  Also, the owners that own their arenas are still making money, moreso than they were when there was a league.  The owners do not care if there is hockey, at least they care a whole lot less than the players.  The players are the ones that dreamed their whole lives of playing in the NHL and are now not.  The owners care about making money which they weren't doing when the NHL was playing.  Most of the players in Europe are making peanuts compared to what they are making in the NHL with the exception of hte players in the Russian Super League.  The half of NHL players not playing in Europe are making crumbs compared to before on the PA lockout fund.[/q]

Most owners hold the team in company separate from their other business interests.  The entity that holds the team has minimal revenues, insufficient to cover many of the costs, even without player salaries being paid (hence the reason so many teams are laying of administrative employees and cutting the salaries of coaches etc.).  Many of those entities have debt that must be serviced; without revenues from the playing of games, owners will need to come out of pocket to cover principal and interest, else face losing their teams to the banks.

The arena companies, whether owned by the team owners or otherwise, are not better off -- the cost of putting on a hockey game is far outweighed by the revenues associated with it, not to mention that with many arenas now being dark on most scheduled game nights, in-arena advertisers and luxury box holders are entitled to refunds or credits for the missed games.

Tub(a)

[Q]CUlater 89 Wrote:

 [Q2]calgARI '07 Wrote:

 The owners don't have any source of revenue?  Well unless you factor in there many other business interests that already bring them far more money than their hockey teams do.  Also, the owners that own their arenas are still making money, moreso than they were when there was a league.  The owners do not care if there is hockey, at least they care a whole lot less than the players.  The players are the ones that dreamed their whole lives of playing in the NHL and are now not.  The owners care about making money which they weren't doing when the NHL was playing.  Most of the players in Europe are making peanuts compared to what they are making in the NHL with the exception of hte players in the Russian Super League.  The half of NHL players not playing in Europe are making crumbs compared to before on the PA lockout fund.[/Q]
Most owners hold the team in company separate from their other business interests.  The entity that holds the team has minimal revenues, insufficient to cover many of the costs, even without player salaries being paid (hence the reason so many teams are laying of administrative employees and cutting the salaries of coaches etc.).  Many of those entities have debt that must be serviced; without revenues from the playing of games, owners will need to come out of pocket to cover principal and interest, else face losing their teams to the banks.

The arena companies, whether owned by the team owners or otherwise, are not better off -- the cost of putting on a hockey game is far outweighed by the revenues associated with it, not to mention that with many arenas now being dark on most scheduled game nights, in-arena advertisers and luxury box holders are entitled to refunds or credits for the missed games.[/q]

Fine, but what do the players have to fall back on? I think what Ari is saying (and what I also think) is that the players are being foolish for thinking that they can maintain the salaries they have now anywhere, while only the NHL actually gives them that opportunity.

If an owner had to fold a team, he would be fine because of his several other business ventures. For example, Tom Golisano (owner of the Sabres) owns Paychex, which makes billions of dollars a year. A hockey team worth less than 100 million would not be a big loss to him. It is just like losing an expensive toy. If a player doesn't have a place to play, he doesn't make anything.

The owners can wait forever for the NHL to return. When it comes back, it will be back under terms where they can make (more?) money. They know that the players will eventually have to cave in, and it's only a matter of time until they do.
Tito Short!

Nate 04

Maybe hockey players will see that they may not be able to make the millions they had anticipated and more will come to college to get a degree.  Thus the overall quality and skill of the college hockey program will increase.  If nothing else, it'll probably deter players from leaving college early.