Larry Brooks 6/26

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Quebec Nordiques.
Colorado Rockies
Atlanta Flames
Minnesota North Stars
Winnipeg Jets
Hartford Whalers

... speaking of temporary ... so are the teams.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

That's a gross and inaccurate description.

But suppose your fantasy world was 100% true. My question would be: Is what the owners are trying to accomplish a bad thing?

Yes.

And the method they used to accomplish their goal was just as bad.

This was not about saving the sport, or saving the league.

This was about a system that capped costs and basically gauranteed profits. It's also going give owners a huge boost in franchise value, IMO.

First of all, I hate the idea of gauranteed profits.
My inlaws have their own business. They work day in, day out, a lot harder than some fat ass moron like Bill Wirtz, and they don't get to have profits gauranteed.

What this tells me is that if you're some rich ******* with $200 Million to spend, you get to buy into a risk-free business.
Well isn't that nice?

Meanwhile the rest of us work and hope we don't lose our shirt.

It seems to me that the owners put the entire problem on the shoulders of the players.
No talk of revenue sharing. No responsibility. No accountability.

I mean, to be quite honest, I really don't feel much sympathy for any NHL player. They've all got it very good, with or without a salary cap.

But in the end, I'm looking for a fair solution.
And that isn't what we've seen.

 

[victor]

First of all, I hate the idea of gauranteed profits.
My inlaws have their own business. They work day in, day out, a lot harder than some fat ass moron like Bill Wirtz, and they don't get to have profits gauranteed.

We will see how guaranteed the profits are if the fans choose not to show up - at the end of the day, nothing is guaranteed.

What this tells me is that if you're some rich ******* with $200 Million to spend, you get to buy into a risk-free business.
Well isn't that nice?

I suggest that you borrow the 200 million from a bank (if it's guaranteed, I doubt you'd need a co-signer)

Meanwhile the rest of us work and hope we don't lose our shirt.

Yep - life in a capitallist country sucks.

It seems to me that the owners put the entire problem on the shoulders of the players.
No talk of revenue sharing. No responsibility. No accountability.

54% of revenues - soft cap - taxes. No talk.

But in the end, I'm looking for a fair solution.
And that isn't what we've seen.

Fair to whom?

 

[SwisshockeyAcademy]

Yes.

And the method they used to accomplish their goal was just as bad.

This was not about saving the sport, or saving the league.

This was about a system that capped costs and basically gauranteed profits. It's also going give owners a huge boost in franchise value, IMO.

First of all, I hate the idea of gauranteed profits.
My inlaws have their own business. They work day in, day out, a lot harder than some fat ass moron like Bill Wirtz, and they don't get to have profits gauranteed.

What this tells me is that if you're some rich ******* with $200 Million to spend, you get to buy into a risk-free business.
Well isn't that nice?

Meanwhile the rest of us work and hope we don't lose our shirt.

It seems to me that the owners put the entire problem on the shoulders of the players.
No talk of revenue sharing. No responsibility. No accountability.

I mean, to be quite honest, I really don't feel much sympathy for any NHL player. They've all got it very good, with or without a salary cap.

But in the end, I'm looking for a fair solution.
And that isn't what we've seen.

Newsguy one - at least you are here you are one of the only pro player guys that still post regularly in this slot. Wild thing, scared sens fan, bicycle repairman they are far more scarce. I said i was not coming back to this board around February because i was sick of arguing that there was no other option than the players seeing the reality of the NHL's financial landscape and agreeing to a cap and many more concessions. What still pisses me off is that neither the players or the owners are mentioning the fans. What are they going to do for us when this is done? There had better be a very thick "to do" list for both sides. I will be very pleased when hockey comes back and it will be coming back in good financial shape which i thought was the common sense thing to do anyway.
Larry Brooks? He falls into that tier of common columnists that are very wrong on occassion, have the odd scoop but mainly just print stuff we all already know. He is neither a great journalist nor a credit to the game. Frankly i'm sick of him, sick of those like him and sick of this lockout nonsense. It will all have been worth it if it never happens again.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

We will see how guaranteed the profits are if the fans choose not to show up - at the end of the day, nothing is guaranteed.?

Well, that's the thing. Something is guaranteed.
Costs.
It's ridiculous.

You talk about live in the capitalist system.

But my costs aren't fixed. I can't tell the bank, oh, you get 18 percent of my income, no matter how much I make.

It's horsetripe. And you know it.

Every single owner will vastly increase the value of their franchise. You watch.

It's kind of like owning a big piece of property off the highway that's zoned for farming, and then joining the Zoning Borad of Appeals and getting it rezoned to commercial.

Every owner stands to gain tens of millions because of this deal.
And they''l either sell or cash out, or use the equity to buy more stuff.

This is about really rich people getting richer.

It has nothing to do with hockey.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Newsguy one - at least you are here you are one of the only pro player guys that still post regularly in this slot. Wild thing, scared sens fan, bicycle repairman they are far more scarce. I said i was not coming back to this board around February because i was sick of arguing that there was no other option than the players seeing the reality of the NHL's financial landscape and agreeing to a cap and many more concessions. What still pisses me off is that neither the players or the owners are mentioning the fans. What are they going to do for us when this is done? There had better be a very thick "to do" list for both sides. I will be very pleased when hockey comes back and it will be coming back in good financial shape which i thought was the common sense thing to do anyway.
Larry Brooks? He falls into that tier of common columnists that are very wrong on occassion, have the odd scoop but mainly just print stuff we all already know. He is neither a great journalist nor a credit to the game. Frankly i'm sick of him, sick of those like him and sick of this lockout nonsense. It will all have been worth it if it never happens again.

I hope that it never happens again.
But my guess is that the owners will be going after guaranteed contracts in the next CBA..

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

... My question would be: Is what the owners are trying to accomplish a bad thing?

when balanced against the cost, i still dont support the scorched earth tactic of the NHL.

even with good pot odds, they gambled the historic league at a poker table, and even though they look to win, i dont appreciate the tactic for their own selfish gain.

dr

 

[Kritter471]

Well, that's the thing. Something is guaranteed.
Costs.
It's ridiculous.

You talk about live in the capitalist system.

But my costs aren't fixed. I can't tell the bank, oh, you get 18 percent of my income, no matter how much I make.

It's horsetripe. And you know it.

Every single owner will vastly increase the value of their franchise. You watch.

It's kind of like owning a big piece of property off the highway that's zoned for farming, and then joining the Zoning Borad of Appeals and getting it rezoned to commercial.

Every owner stands to gain tens of millions because of this deal.
And they''l either sell or cash out, or use the equity to buy more stuff.

This is about really rich people getting richer.

It has nothing to do with hockey.

But...but...but... competitive balance! Long-term survival of the sport! Financially healthy owners-financially healthy teams!

Isn't that why the owners are doing all of this? Cause that's what they've been telling us.

</sarcasm>

 

[victor]

Well, that's the thing. Something is guaranteed.
Costs.
It's ridiculous.

You talk about live in the capitalist system.

But my costs aren't fixed. I can't tell the bank, oh, you get 18 percent of my income, no matter how much I make.

See <strong>partnership</strong><br>

Every single owner will vastly increase the value of their franchise. You watch.

Isn't that why they invested in the teams?

Every owner stands to gain tens of millions because of this deal.
And they''l either sell or cash out, or use the equity to buy more stuff.

Yep - that's why they are in this business

This is about really rich people getting richer.

Borrow capital, invest. Hope to make money - Adam Smith (parapharased)

It has nothing to do with hockey.

That I agree with.

 

[quat]

Well, that's the thing. Something is guaranteed.
Costs.
It's ridiculous.

You talk about live in the capitalist system.

But my costs aren't fixed. I can't tell the bank, oh, you get 18 percent of my income, no matter how much I make.

It's horsetripe. And you know it.

Every single owner will vastly increase the value of their franchise. You watch.

It's kind of like owning a big piece of property off the highway that's zoned for farming, and then joining the Zoning Borad of Appeals and getting it rezoned to commercial.

Every owner stands to gain tens of millions because of this deal.
And they''l either sell or cash out, or use the equity to buy more stuff.

This is about really rich people getting richer.

It has nothing to do with hockey.

It suprises me that after almost a solid year of posting on the Business of hockey board, you still don't have even a rudimentary understanding of what constitutes a healthy league. Granted, there is more than a single way of doing things, but your complaint seems completely grounded in the fact that they players had to give in to the owners... which means you completely ignore the financial reality of the todays NHL.

I even wonder if when 10 years down the road and the league is extremely healthy, the players all making fantastic money (as they will as soon as they sign the new CBA, but let's say even better than that), if you will be able to understand how things function.

It's not like your team lost. A healthy league is the best thing for the players long term. You would have to be extremely myopic not to see this.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

This is about really rich people getting richer.

It has nothing to do with hockey.

100% right.

 

[SwisshockeyAcademy]

Well, that's the thing. Something is guaranteed.
Costs.
It's ridiculous.

You talk about live in the capitalist system.

But my costs aren't fixed. I can't tell the bank, oh, you get 18 percent of my income, no matter how much I make.

It's horsetripe. And you know it.

Every single owner will vastly increase the value of their franchise. You watch.

It's kind of like owning a big piece of property off the highway that's zoned for farming, and then joining the Zoning Borad of Appeals and getting it rezoned to commercial.

Every owner stands to gain tens of millions because of this deal.
And they''l either sell or cash out, or use the equity to buy more stuff.

This is about really rich people getting richer.

It has nothing to do with hockey.

So we should have just left it as is then. It was working so well. I acknowledged your presence in the face of criticism but your concern for the size of the owner's wallets is odd. Why do you care? Its far better we have the game in good financial shape and a reasonably level playing field. The NHL and other sports are not part of the capitalist system you are going on about. They are thirty seperate businesses under one umbrella so they do have to answer to a higher power. In the real business world everyone is on their own save for answering to government regulations. Fixed costs in the NHL should mean more stability for all teams and fans should not have to fear having their teams ripped out of their city and their hearts torn to shreds.

 

[Marconius]

Well, that's the thing. Something is guaranteed.
Costs.
It's ridiculous.

You talk about live in the capitalist system.

But my costs aren't fixed. I can't tell the bank, oh, you get 18 percent of my income, no matter how much I make.

It's horsetripe. And you know it.

Every single owner will vastly increase the value of their franchise. You watch.

It's kind of like owning a big piece of property off the highway that's zoned for farming, and then joining the Zoning Borad of Appeals and getting it rezoned to commercial.

Every owner stands to gain tens of millions because of this deal.
And they''l either sell or cash out, or use the equity to buy more stuff.

This is about really rich people getting richer.

It has nothing to do with hockey.

I don't think a lot of people are debating that this is about money. It just so happens that the deal the owners wanted also created a level playing field, something the majority of hockey fans seem to want.

You can bet that if the players deal somehow gave a team like Edm or Cal an even shot at bidding on players/keeping players, then the fans would love the players side of things

 

[Slapshot17]

I question if there will ever be a level playing field until there is revenue sharing. There is going to be teams that still lose money even under this agreement, and those teams will spend the cap minimum, and other teams will spend the maximum. It will make it closer but not even. The NFL thrives because all teams can spend the maximum the cap allows, as can the NBA. The NHL will have teams that still can't even come close to spending the cap maximum, so although it closes the gap, it won't be even.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Well, that's the thing. Something is guaranteed.
Costs.
It's ridiculous.

You talk about live in the capitalist system.

But my costs aren't fixed. I can't tell the bank, oh, you get 18 percent of my income, no matter how much I make.

You DO realize, I hope, that in one fell swoop you have denied the very raison d'etre of unions in the real world. By assuming the responsibility for the joint negotiation of wages, a union virtually guarantees the fixed costs of the employers.

Recalling that you are from a strong union town in Windsor(?), I am surprised (to say the least) you would be denigrating the efforts of your union brethren.

 

[Scoogs]

apawn

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Yes.

And the method they used to accomplish their goal was just as bad.

This was not about saving the sport, or saving the league.

This was about a system that capped costs and basically gauranteed profits. It's also going give owners a huge boost in franchise value, IMO.

First of all, I hate the idea of gauranteed profits.
My inlaws have their own business. They work day in, day out, a lot harder than some fat ass moron like Bill Wirtz, and they don't get to have profits gauranteed.

What this tells me is that if you're some rich ******* with $200 Million to spend, you get to buy into a risk-free business.
Well isn't that nice?

Man, this is wrong on many levels.

First, I think you need to hook up with the inlaws and ask them more about business. Because if you think this CBA is the key to garanteed profits, you've got a lot to learn still about business.

Secondly, I doubt very much that you hate the idea of garanteed profits. Who doesn't like garantees? Garantees=good. Garantees=control and less surprises, or mechanism to compensate for bad surprises. Everybody wants more of that in life.

But this is pretty irrelevent anyway because this CBA alone does not garantee profits.

What it does is give the owners a little more tools to try and make profits. And guess what, every single person that has ever operated a business (or even a hobby) and was worth his salt does the exact same thing.

It is the essence of business itself to try and make money and put in place as many mechanisms as possible to avoid drastic losses. If your inlaws are not doing everything in their power to accomplish this, they're doing it wrong.

This is merely what the NHL is trying to accomplish creatively here. That type of stuff has been going on for decades. It happens with partners, investors, employers, employees, customers, insurers, governments, etc.

It's a simple mechanism, like there are everywhere. It doesn't print money, it doesn't garantee profits either.

Not to mention, in a couple of years this is going to make the NHL a stronger league and most probably a better product. Makes perfect sense business-wise and is actually a boon for us hockey fans.

What's not to like?

What I get from your post is you seem to be resentful that there are multi-millionaires and billionaires trying to make money out of this. I don't give a **** about those people one way or another but you're wrong if you think that small businesses aren't playing the same game.

I can also tell you most of us would be lucky to be in the NHLPA's shoes. The NHL treats the NHLPA very, very, very well. The deals I hear about these days are still too good for my tastes.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

But my costs aren't fixed. I can't tell the bank, oh, you get 18 percent of my income, no matter how much I make.

Wow, you just don't have a clue and feel free to make it evident to anyone with five minutes of real world experience. No, you can't go to a bank and tell them they get 18% of your income, but the bank can look over your finances and decline you loans or call notes because you carry too much debit and are considered a bad risk. They look at your income and decide that you are a bad risk because you are paying out too much of your revenues. That's the way loans work. If you exceed a certain percentage of your gross income you don't get a loan to buy that house or that car or what ever the hell else you want. Paying 76% of revenues to the players was considered a bad risk by the bankers for multiple teams, and in the long term the league as well, so something had to be done. That's the reality of the situation. And hey, if you don't believe me, feel free to walk into ANY bank and fill out a loan application where you are paying 76% of your revenues to one creditor. After all the laughing ceases listen carefully to what they say. I have a feeling you're going to learn something you obviously don't know.

 

[me2]

Well, that's the thing. Something is guaranteed.
Costs.
It's ridiculous.

You talk about live in the capitalist system.

But my costs aren't fixed. I can't tell the bank, oh, you get 18 percent of my income, no matter how much I make.

What about all those people that work for commision? They get the paid on what the business brings in. It is the similar deal as the players are getting. How about people that make much of their living from getting tips? Work hard, bring in income, get a percentage. Small business owners? They get paid a percentage of what is left over too. Don't make it out as no one ever gets paid this way.

The players are doing just fine on 54% of $2B.