Things I'm tired to hear about the PRO-OWNERS.

[Russian Fan]

The thing I'm tired to hear is that the players are greedy & the owners are not. To me that's the biggest bull**** I can hear.

The 2nd thing is that a cap would lower the ticket price where Bob Goodenow said & that's 1 thing I agree with is that TICKET PRICES & PLAYERS SALARIES are not related. For an amateur, average joe hockey fan, he look at a players millions & he sees ticket price rising & there you go.

The 3rd thing that I hate to hear is that OWNERS are taking all the risk , they have a right to make money. OF COURSE they should make money but taking the risk does NOT GIVE YOU the RIGHT to make some. I'm sorry but if you start your business & you manage it like a moron, you will lose MONEY & it's almost like you have a RIGHT to lose money.

The 4th thing is that I'm tired to hear the ''HOLIK'' salaries, it happens 1-TIME & it won't happen again. Should we bother about it ? Does John Madden got 9,000,000$ this year ?no.

Also people are going way overboard with the 10M$ thing. As of TODAY there's 41 PLAYERS making more the 5,000,000$ & 19 of those 41 are making 7,000,000$ +

19 PLAYERS !!!!!! & all we talk about is that no one should make 10M$. It's not the majority who make 10M$.

Conclusion : I'm don't have any sympathy for players but I don't have any sympathy either for the owners & 1-thing that makes me want to vomit is that people are just eating the word that Bettman-Daly say.

Also everyone jump on the NHLPA when a player speak a bit differently than the PA executive but does anyone realize that to make sure the NHL Owner will win the PR battle they put an order to all 30 owners to not speak about the negotiation & everything non-related to their specific team or they will be fined 1,000,000$ ? That just tell you how UNIFIED the owner are, they have to restrain themselves to be UNIFIED. How pathetic.

Click to read more...

 

[Chelios]

I would like to first say that I don`t "support" the owners... I agree with them that the league needs some type of cost certainty. I honestly believe that the league needs some type of link between revenues and playercosts to stabilize the finances of the league and, hopefully, allow the game to prosper and grow once it has settled financially.

The thing I'm tired to hear is that the players are greedy & the owners are not. To me that's the biggest bull**** I can hear.

I agree with you on this. I think that some members of both parties are greedy but not all of either.

The 2nd thing is that a cap would lower the ticket price where Bob Goodenow said & that's 1 thing I agree with is that TICKET PRICES & PLAYERS SALARIES are not related. For an amateur, average joe hockey fan, he look at a players millions & he sees ticket price rising & there you go.

I disagree somewhat with this point. I don`t believe there is a direct correlation between ticket prices and player salaries, but you would have to be a fool to believe that there is ABSOLUTELY no relationship between the two. The owners need money to pay the players and in a gate driven league like the NHL the easiest thing to do is raise ticket prices. Once a new deal is in place I doubt ticket prices will go down, but I also don`t think they will go up for quite a while.

The 3rd thing that I hate to hear is that OWNERS are taking all the risk , they have a right to make money. OF COURSE they should make money but taking the risk does NOT GIVE YOU the RIGHT to make some. I'm sorry but if you start your business & you manage it like a moron, you will lose MONEY & it's almost like you have a RIGHT to lose money.

I completely disagree with this. The owners are taking all the risk, and yes they have a right to make money off their team or at the very least not lose money. Their is a huge risk with owning an NHL team, you could be doing all the right things as far as management goes but, for example if a star player (or two) go down to injury, you start losing games, you start losing fans, you miss the playoffs and BOOM like that you have lost money.

The 4th thing is that I'm tired to hear the ''HOLIK'' salaries, it happens 1-TIME & it won't happen again. Should we bother about it ? Does John Madden got 9,000,000$ this year ?no.

The reason people keep bringing up Holik is because that contract basically sums up the problem we have on our hands right now. Here is a situation where the Rangers wanted him, and were basically willing to pay anything to get him. That, in a nutshell, is why we need some sort of cap. The rangers and a few others can pay these salaries, while the others cannot.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

The reason people keep bringing up Holik is because that contract basically sums up the problem we have on our hands right now. Here is a situation where the Rangers wanted him, and were basically willing to pay anything to get him. That, in a nutshell, is why we need some sort of cap. The rangers and a few others can pay these salaries, while the others cannot.

NJD offered him over 8m per season. TOR was willing to pay him 8m per season as well.

Its not like NYR was the only team to offer him that ugly contract.

Besides, it was a one time contract, and no matter what system, we wont see it again. I represents less than 1% of the entire pay the players get, its not a big deal. Less than 20 players make over 8m per season.

dr

 

[wint]

I honestly believe that the league needs some type of link between revenues and playercosts to stabilize the finances of the league.

Absolutely. The only problem is that the owners are almost certainly under-reporting revenues. If the NHL and the NHLPA can agree on a way to establish true league revenues, I think the two sides will move quickly toward a soft cap / revenue sharing solution.

The owners need money to pay the players and in a gate-driven league like the NHL the easiest thing to do is raise ticket prices.

No, the easiest thing to do is get more money from tickets. That could mean raising prices if the owner thinks fans will keep paying, or lowering them in order to get more people in the building. Increases in ticket prices are caused by increases in fan interest, not player salaries. Tickets will always be priced at the exact amount that the owners think will get them the highest return, regardless of who plays on their team.

The owners are taking all the risk, and yes they have a right to make money off their team or at the very least not lose money.

It is simply not true to say that players are not taking any risks. Their careers are short. They risk major injuries every game. Their life spans are almost certainly cut short as a result of the punishment they take on a regular basis. But most importantly, every successful NHLer is one of thousands and thousands of hopeful hockey players who have invested enormous amounts of time and energy into the sport, many foregoing college, all for a chance to make it to the NHL. True, much of this time is spent playing a fun game. But wagering most of your young life on a career that most likely will never materialize is a big risk nonetheless.

 

[Chelios]

NJD offered him over 8m per season. TOR was willing to pay him 8m per season as well.

Its not like NYR was the only team to offer him that ugly contract.

Exactly. That it what I meant when I said that it sums up the situation of the league. Their were three teams willing to pay a 3rd line center $8 million, while I`m sure that most teams would never pay more than 4 million for Bobby Holik. There is the problem we have in today`s NHL.

 

[Chelios]

It is simply not true to say that players are not taking any risks. Their careers are short. They risk major injuries every game. Their life spans are almost certainly cut short as a result of the punishment they take on a regular basis. But most importantly, every successful NHLer is one of thousands and thousands of hopeful hockey players who have invested enormous amounts of time and energy into the sport, many foregoing college, all for a chance to make it to the NHL. True, much of this time is spent playing a fun game. But wagering most of your young life on a career that most likely will never materialize is a big risk nonetheless.

I was talking about financial risk, not physical risk. The players have absolutely no financial risk involved while the owners have tons.

 

[tantalum]

Absolutely. The only problem is that the owners are almost certainly under-reporting revenues. If the NHL and the NHLPA can agree on a way to establish true league revenues, I think the two sides will move quickly toward a soft cap / revenue sharing solution.

I wouldn't be too sure. You'd have to be an idiot in todays business world to not be truthful in your reporting of revenues and expenses. The league provides the revenue and costs to the players association for every team. If the NHLPA has a problem with that negotiate it. But it isn't that easy...as soon as they start talking about negotiating revenues it's a slippery slope for the NHLPA. It signals the beginning of tying salaries to revenues and thus some sort of cap system. Something they won't do at this time.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I wouldn't be too sure. You'd have to be an idiot in todays business world to not be truthful in your reporting of revenues and expenses. .

yet many of todays current and former owners have been charged with fraud and other securities offences.

you want the players to trust known fraudsters who are experianced at cooking the books ?

dr

 

[Digger12]

yet many of todays current and former owners have been charged with fraud and other securities offences.

you want the players to trust known fraudsters who are experianced at cooking the books ?

dr

That's about as fair as saying that many of today's current and former players have been charged with drunken driving and other alcolhol-related offences.

Does that mean the majority are like that?

If the two sides could only agree to an impartial 3rd party for looking at these books, perhaps this mistrust could be dealt with.

 

[YellHockey*]

That's about as fair as saying that many of today's current and former players have been charged with drunken driving and other alcolhol-related offences.

What's the percentage of the two cases? There's a significant percentage of NHL owners who have been involved in fraudulent activities. How many players fit your example?

And how do alcohol-related offences influence anything? Do the owners not trust the players because a small number has gotten into trouble while under the influence?

 

[Legolas]

I was talking about financial risk, not physical risk. The players have absolutely no financial risk involved while the owners have tons.

To me, financial risk means nothing. If you play the stock market, you've got 100% risk and nobody is watching your back to make sure you will at least break even. Now, the NHL teams definitely deserve a chance to make money, and I agree that some teams may not be able to make money AND be competitive, and I agree that's a problem which requires a new CBA. But just because some owner decides to throw money into a business does not mean that the employees have to help him out and make sure he makes money.

As far as players having financial risk, there's certainly some. It's true that no player is going to ever lose money playing hockey, but the players depend on the league for their livelihood, the owners certainly do not. I can't think of a single owner or corporate owner who absolutely needs their hockey team to do well financially in order to have money overall. All the owners are already wealthy, or the hockey team is a tiny part of their corporate or investment portfolio. A player can get injured and be out of the game forever and never make another cent for the rest of their lives playing hockey. No owner has a comparable situation, as far as I am aware.

 

[djhn579]

What's the percentage of the two cases? There's a significant percentage of NHL owners who have been involved in fraudulent activities. How many players fit your example?

And how do alcohol-related offences influence anything? Do the owners not trust the players because a small number has gotten into trouble while under the influence?

How many current NHL team owners have been convicted of fraudulant activity?

 

[Blueski]

What's the percentage of the two cases? There's a significant percentage of NHL owners who have been involved in fraudulent activities. How many players fit your example?

And how do alcohol-related offences influence anything? Do the owners not trust the players because a small number has gotten into trouble while under the influence?

Digger wasn't saying anything about trustor anything relating alcohol and the CBA, it was just an observation of the fairness of the previous statement. It is kind of like saying that since one person from Chicago (used only for illustration purposes) killed someone that everybody in Chicago is a murderer. Not a factual statement at all.

And I would love to see your list of the "significant percentage" of current NHL owners who have been involved in fraudulent activities.

 

[Til the End of Time]

The thing I'm tired to hear is that the players are greedy & the owners are not. To me that's the biggest bull**** I can hear.

Who said that?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Digger wasn't saying anything about trustor anything relating alcohol and the CBA, it was just an observation of the fairness of the previous statement. It is kind of like saying that since one person from Chicago (used only for illustration purposes) killed someone that everybody in Chicago is a murderer. Not a factual statement at all.

And I would love to see your list of the "significant percentage" of current NHL owners who have been involved in fraudulent activities.

thats not what i am saying .. i am saying i would find it hard to trust that group of people to provide "clean" accounting records when a number of them have been charged with securities fraud.

dr

 

[LastoftheBrunnenG]

To me, financial risk means nothing. If you play the stock market, you've got 100% risk and nobody is watching your back to make sure you will at least break even. Now, the NHL teams definitely deserve a chance to make money, and I agree that some teams may not be able to make money AND be competitive, and I agree that's a problem which requires a new CBA. But just because some owner decides to throw money into a business does not mean that the employees have to help him out and make sure he makes money.

As far as players having financial risk, there's certainly some. It's true that no player is going to ever lose money playing hockey, but the players depend on the league for their livelihood, the owners certainly do not. I can't think of a single owner or corporate owner who absolutely needs their hockey team to do well financially in order to have money overall. All the owners are already wealthy, or the hockey team is a tiny part of their corporate or investment portfolio. A player can get injured and be out of the game forever and never make another cent for the rest of their lives playing hockey. No owner has a comparable situation, as far as I am aware.

So what you are saying is that the owners have the responsibility to invest tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, get no guarentee on thier investment so Joe Sakic, Bobby Holik, et al can make lots and lots of money? You said it yourself, this is the livelyhood for the players. The owners are already doing their part by capitilizing the sport. Now that they've done that you say they have no right to collectively bargain. But the players have the right to protect the status quo even if it hurts the NHL as a whole? The owners have already done their part and therefore, as parters, HAVE A RIGHT to a portion of the gross revenue. They have an equal right to the players to the revenue and an equal right to collectively bargain. The owners are at a distinct disadvantage because they must do their 'policing' via the CBA. Any other way of preventing a minority of owners who overspead on certain players (we all know who they are) outside of the CBA would be labeled COLLUSION. For years the MLB players whined that MLB owners needed to police themselves. This last off season was the 2nd off season were the biggest contract was not as big as the biggest from the previous season. What did I read agents and some players saying? The C word: Collusion.

I also don't understand the trust issue. The NBA and NFL have caps and both are tied to revenue. They seem to be thriving. If the players will accept a cap if the owners go to 3rd party accountants using GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) and the owners say no, then I'll change my mind and side with the players. What do the owners tax returns say? If there's rampant hanky panky with the numbers, where is the IRS and the canadian equivalent?

 

[Digger12]

thats not what i am saying .. i am saying i would find it hard to trust that group of people to provide "clean" accounting records when a number of them have been charged with securities fraud.

dr

Have any current NHL owners done this? And if so, who?

I'm not saying it hasn't happened before, but if people are going to attach words like 'many' and 'a significant percentage', that comes off as nebulous and rumourmongering to me. More info would help me here.

If it's as widespread as you seem to imply, why aren't the IRS and Canada Customs & Revenue crawling all over these criminal franchises like ants in an open jam jar?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Have any current NHL owners done this? And if so, who?

I'm not saying it hasn't happened before, but if people are going to attach words like 'many' and 'a significant percentage', that comes off as nebulous and rumourmongering to me. More info would help me here.

If it's as widespread as you seem to imply, why aren't the IRS and Canada Customs & Revenue crawling all over these criminal franchises like ants in an open jam jar?

the former BUF owner is in jail for fraud and faulty accounting (Adelphia)
the current LAK owner has narrowly escaped charges, but the 4 top executives didnt. (QWest)
the current OTT owner is under investigation. (Biovail)

ok, there is 3, 2 active and 1 very recently.

dr

 

[Jack Canuck]

No, the easiest thing to do is get more money from tickets. That could mean raising prices if the owner thinks fans will keep paying, or lowering them in order to get more people in the building. Increases in ticket prices are caused by increases in fan interest, not player salaries. Tickets will always be priced at the exact amount that the owners think will get them the highest return, regardless of who plays on their team.

Exactly!

 

[wint]

If there's rampant hanky panky with the numbers, where is the IRS and the canadian equivalent?

The problem isn't really illegal activity, it's that there are no generally accepted accounting practices for determining what is and is not considered hockey income.

This is complicated for a number of reasons. Most teams are owned by people or companies that have a significant number of other, often related, assets. Consider Cablevision, owner of MSG and the Rangers. Cablevision the TV company pays some small token amount to the Rangers for their TV rights, because the money all ends up in the same place anyway. But because their TV deal provides so little income, the Rangers can actually say they are losing money overall.

Seemingly insignificant accounting discrepancies like this add up to hundreds of millions of dollars league-wide. This is the reason why the league can say they lost $270 million last year while the NHLPA can insist that the owners are under-reporting their revenue. IMO this is the big stumbling block to a deal.

The league genuinely needs some kind of relationship between costs and revenues, but the players suspect (rightly so) that any deal linking salaries to revenues will simply cause the owners to do whatever they can to give the appearance of small revenues. As soon as the players are satisfied that there are mechanisms in place to ensure that the owners will accurately report their revenue streams, I think there will be a deal in place within two weeks.

 

[me2]

No, the easiest thing to do is get more money from tickets. That could mean raising prices if the owner thinks fans will keep paying, or lowering them in order to get more people in the building. Increases in ticket prices are caused by increases in fan interest, not player salaries. Tickets will always be priced at the exact amount that the owners think will get them the highest return, regardless of who plays on their team.

[http://www.teammarketing.com/fci.cfm?page=fci_nhl_02-03.cfm]

$33.49 for an average price for a ticket in 94-95
$43.57 for an average price for a ticket in 03-04

about a 30% increase. Inflation from 94-03/04 was about 28%. The price has even dropped from $47 in 00-01. The ticket market is clearly saturated in some areas.

http://www.hockeyzoneplus.com/$maseq_e.htm

Meanwhile the payroll has increased by a lot more than that. $10m in 92-3, $19.6m in 95-96, $33m in 00-01, $44m in 03-04.

Is there any wonder there is a revenue shortfall in the NHL?

 

[YellHockey*]

the former BUF owner is in jail for fraud and faulty accounting (Adelphia)
the current LAK owner has narrowly escaped charges, but the 4 top executives didnt. (QWest)
the current OTT owner is under investigation. (Biovail)

ok, there is 3, 2 active and 1 very recently.

dr

New Jersey has had some shady characters in its ownership group as well. One of the owners had been banned by Major League Baseball from taking part in day to day activities in his baseball team. Another suspected member of the ownership group is the head of Tyco, another company that's being investigated by the SEC.