Leonsis comments on Caps profitability

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by hockeytown9321, Nov 18, 2006.

  1. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  2. Ogopogo*

    Ogopogo* Guest

    Many of the reasons the owners wanted a cap are for their own financial benefit; they wouldn't announce that to hockey fans. But, as a serendipidy of the cap we have the small market teams financially stable and able to compete.

    Ultimately, I don't care what the real reasons are for the cap, it benefits me as a fan because my team can keep players and compete, I like it.
     
  3. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Funny that if I wrote a comment that I wanted to keep the old system because it benefitted my team (which I, nor the players, ever suggested), I'd get lambasted for just being a selfish Red Wings fan.
     
  4. Ogopogo*

    Ogopogo* Guest

    Yes, because under the old system, the Red Wings and 5 or 6 other teams shared the benefits. Under the new system all 30 teams get the same advantages. The new system is fair to all, the old system only benefitted a few.
     
  5. Ducksforcup

    Ducksforcup Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Messages:
    12,223
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    132
    Occupation:
    Asset Recovery Specialist
    Location:
    Anaheim, California
    Agreed. :)
     
  6. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But you said you did not care why the salary cap was implementated. You wanted it because it benefitted *your* team.

    I'm glad after two years there's some honesty now.
     
  7. Ogopogo*

    Ogopogo* Guest



    I worded it incorrectly, sue me. A system that allows all 30 teams to compete is the only acceptable system. Hanging on to a system that virtually guaranteed the Red Wings to be one of the top 5 teams in the NHL is pretty sad.
     
  8. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ah, you worded it wrong. My mistake.
     
  9. Rand

    Rand Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2002
    Messages:
    9,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    129
    Occupation:
    IT Journalist
    Home Page:
    Of course it was. The owners aren't icing a franchise for the good of their health... they want to make money.
    How many people honestly believed ticket prices would go down and stay down?
    Teams will charge whatever they can, and as much as the market will accept.
    Their not going to throw out cheap tickets just to be kind to you.

    One would have to be awfully naive to believe the owners paramount goal above all else is and will remain the ability to make a profit. The bigger profit the better.

    Whether the CBA benefits the fans,whether you or I like it is immaterial. What matters is their ability to maximize the revenues they see from us.

    Gary Bettman is employed by the woners, not the fans. His goals are to please the owners. I'd like to think most people are well aware of that and either like/dislike the CBA for how it influences their experience as a fan... not out of some misguided belief that it will make the 30 NHL franchises one massive charity that exists solely to please us.
     
  10. GSC2k2*

    GSC2k2* Guest

    Hockeytown, do you want to give it up at any point?

    Nowhere in the article does Leonsis say what the title of your thread indicates he said. It is a bald-faced lie.

    Title change, Mods?
     
  11. Ogopogo*

    Ogopogo* Guest

    Although that is technically true, NHL hockey has to be entertaining to the fans for the owners to make a profit. If the Oilers cannot compete and continue to have their best players leave the team for more money elsewhere, tickets will stop selling. (As they did in the mid 90s).

    All teams need to have the opportunity to build a winner. Without that opportunity the fans will go away and the team will fold.
     
  12. futurcorerock

    futurcorerock Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,831
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Isn't the increasing value of franchise a by-product of the stated public reasons of the CBA?

    Mountains out of Molehills, guys
     
  13. taunting canadian

    taunting canadian Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,428
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    = increased franchise value. That should have been pretty obvious, I would have thought? How would increasing financial stability NOT increase franchise value? Investors discount investments where they don't know whether they'll end up losing money, after all.
     
  14. Schitzo

    Schitzo Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,617
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Financial stability is a huge factor for smaller market teams - take the oilers, for example. We're sitting around $40 million in payroll right now, and it's one of the largest budgets we've ever had.

    3 years ago, the owners had NO reason to spend $40 million, because someone else would just spend $60 million or $80 million and buy themselves a contender (or the NYR, but that's another story :D ).
    Now, if the Oilers raise ticket prices $5 each across the board, I don't mind. Why? Because I know that with a $40 million roster, we can be competitive, which is all I (and most other fans) have ever wanted. Hell, raise prices another $3 next year and go for a $44 million roster, if they're winning on the ice, I'll gladly pay it.

    Ideally, in a salary cap league, no team will ever be completely uncompetitive, unless the GM truly screws up badly (see Philly, Phoenix). That keeps ticket sales up, because hell, who knows what will happen come playoff time!
     
  15. Northern Dancer

    Northern Dancer The future ain't what it used to be.

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    Messages:
    15,187
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    171
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Laytex Salesman
    Location:
    5 K from the ACC
    Do not know why anyone is surprised with that. When you have existing NHL frnachises trading below what expansion teams paid to get into the League then you have a huge problem.
     
  16. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I agree the owners and Gary have a right to run the league the way they want. I just wish they had been honest about their reasons during the lockout. At least then I could've respected their position even if I disagreed with it.
     
  17. Sotnos

    Sotnos Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    10,887
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Not here
    Home Page:
    Indeed. This makes it sound like they were deliberately "hiding" something. :biglaugh: There is nothing in that article that says what the title of this thread suggests.
     
  18. SuperUnknown

    SuperUnknown Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    4,891
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Financial stability = higher franchise value.

    The NHL franchises value was going down the drain because it was a terrible investment, where owners would have to put in $10M each year just to keep the team rolling. It did put the whole NHL in a bad light when teams were going bankrupt, were put on sale for years without potential buyers.

    Now with the cap, they've got controlled expenses that limit the owners losses (or helps them make a small profit), which definately increases the franchises value as a decent business investment.

    The 30 teams being able to compete is also part of franchise value, as it helps the "lower teams" to keep a fanbase with a potential rebound in the next few years, instead of staying in mediocrity for 10 years. A more competitive league will push all franchises value up.

    As to lowering ticket prices, well that wasn't the real point of the lockout, but I think many of us knew it.

    The result of the lockout is that as fans we can concentrate on the game aspect instead of which franchise will move where, if franchises are going to get cut, etc...
     
  19. Irish Blues

    Irish Blues Worth waiting for :)

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Messages:
    21,800
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Actuary
    I could change it to "A goal of CBA is to ...." - otherwise, is it really that big of a deal in this case?
     
  20. Northern Dancer

    Northern Dancer The future ain't what it used to be.

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    Messages:
    15,187
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    171
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Laytex Salesman
    Location:
    5 K from the ACC
    Come on, any strike/lock-out is a struggle for money, what were you thinking?
     
  21. Pepper

    Pepper Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Messages:
    14,532
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well it is a bit misleading as increase in franchise value is a by-product of financial stability. The MAIN goal was to make sure all teams are able to be financially stabile and give all teams relatively equal basis to compete.
     
  22. GSC2k2*

    GSC2k2* Guest

    It is just seeming to become a bit rampant, IB. People link to articles and say stuff that is not even said, apparently in the hopes that people will not actually click on the link and read it.

    Of course it is not a "big deal", though. This is just hockey.
     
  23. GSC2k2*

    GSC2k2* Guest

    They were honest about it, which is more than I can say for you in your misrepresentation of what Leonsis actually said.
     
  24. Irish Blues

    Irish Blues Worth waiting for :)

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Messages:
    21,800
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Actuary
    Fine ... we'll go with this one.
     
  25. hockeytown9321

    hockeytown9321 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "Ultimately, I don't care what the real reasons are for the cap, it benefits me as a fan because my team can keep players and compete, I like it."

    That comes from small market fan Ogopogo earlier in the thread.

    I've never said anything remotely close to that about my team. I've always been very clear why I think a salary cap is not the correct system: it will tear apart well built teams, and the salary cap does not address the huge revenue disparities between big markets and small markets.

    Here is Ted Leonsis' quote from the article:

    "The goal is to have the asset appreciate more than you are losing money," he said. "That wasn't happening pre-lockout"

    Change the title of the thread to whatever anybody wants. Change it to "hockeytown9321 is an ******* who only cares about letting his Red Wings' continue to buy Stanley Cups", I don't care. It doesn't change the fact that the NHL misrepresented its reason's for the lockout.
     

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"