Bettman got 4% raise last year

Fugu

Guest
You've provided the best argument for Bettman to get a 50% raise.

Only for creative writing classes. ;)

Were there proprly qualified local owners available the first time, or would the only other choice have been to relocate?

Isn't that part of the "problem"? And a franchise that decreased in value by about 50%, and not just due to a recession, which can only be flipped by importing owners? Really?



I understand that Pontiac, Saturn, and Hummer franchises
didn't do too well recently, either. :sarcasm: People blame Bettman for a lot, but you're the first person I've heard that blames him for the great recession.

Bettman's problems started long before the recession. The recession just accelerated certain things, or others might say "unmasked".


And how is Bettman supposed to over-rule American bankruptcy law?

The one thing the NHL does control is who gets into their club in the first place. I think it's clear in hindsight to even the most casual of observers that Moyes wasn't going to cooperate with the league he joined. You can speculate how it got to that point if you like.


The NHL tried to craft a deal, but the GWI got in the way. In the long run, that may have been a good thing, avoing another fiasco in 5 years.

And GWI said the deal went against the constitution. I can craft deals that break the law too (to further my own gain). Should I?

Again, how was Bettman supposed to know several years ago that ASG were lying through their teeth about wanting the Thrashers?
And Bettman is supposed to have been clairvoyant?

I'm starting to see a theme here-- bad owners. It's never Gary's fault. The real point is that this ownership group killed the NHL product in one of the biggest media markets. Someone had to approve the sale of the team to these clowns. Good show!

What I think happened is Gary was so relieved someone actually wanted to buy certain teams, he does cartwheels instead of doing his job. It's unfortunate really that pro sports ownership has turned to group efforts instead of one owner, for example.


Boots del Biagio is one you missed. Bettman is a commissioner, not an auditor. He trusted the NHL's auditors. They got fooled by del Biagio, just like several banks' auditors got fooled by del Biagio.

:)

As I said before, you've provided excellent arguments for Bettman getting a much larger raise. As you said, the above do not constitute a steady ship. Bettman had his hands full avoiding contraction, and I wouldn't want his job, even for twice his pay. Except for possibly item #1 above, I do not see how any normal competent commissioner could've forseen/avoided them. It's easy to criticise Bettman. Can you come up with any ideas about what he should've done differently? Note that these ideas must not include clairvoyance and/or time-travel. ;)


:)

I'd take his job at twice the pay. You could hire a lot of minions to help you out if you really felt challenged. :laugh:
 

Fugu

Guest
I love it when people say "fact". It's like when people start to say something with "but". My dad always taught me it's a nice cue for bs follows and turns out he's been right for the most part. There's no need to clog a Business of Hockey thread about it, but he far from sucks, and GM of the Year as well as a good game away from a Stanley Cup win (despite being a GM for only 3 years) says otherwise.

He deserves the raise, plain and simple. The NHL's profitable in so many areas and is expanding despite the recession. Surprised he didn't get more tbh.

Care to elaborate? Who is profitable exactly?

Have all franchise values increased steadily?
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
I don't see the connection between a Bettman raise (which is performance-based and the performance has been very good) and arguments about the merit of Canadian teams' growth relative to the NHL.

Neither do I. Dr.No was challenging a poster who was claiming some sort of anti-Canadian conspiracy, and yes, Gillis deserves respect & credit for what he's accomplished. I hope you'll pardon me however if I find some of his activities & theories more than just a wee bit curious/eccentric/amusing.... :)
 

Fourier

Registered User
Dec 29, 2006
25,439
19,572
Waterloo Ontario
So, a quick perusal of your links shows that every official voice in the league or NHLPA disagrees with your analysis of revenue splits?

Um, thanks, I guess.



Don't give me that, I've been here as long as you, I just choose not to battle the groupthink here as most of the educated voices that go contrary to it have gone... missing (case in point - the guy who pointed out the edit earlier in the thread), or simply tire of having to post or post rebuttals to the exact same arguments over and over as they get ignored (the fact I've already posted a detailed mathematical analysis of Canadian currency which was summarily ignored being a striking case in point). As we see from Fugu's post after yours, there's a considerable amount of positive feedback loopage coupled with some other posters posting utterly insane 'theories' ("Canada will never win a cup with Bettman as commissioner") that make it far too tiring to stay here for very long to defend the truth.



If you are admitting that the percentage isn't nearly as significant if you go before the US crash - which I believe you already have earlier - then you are not as far from my position as you think. When I worked the numbers the first time disproving Fugu I actually worked from 2004.

I have no problem saying that the Canadian share of league revenues has been stronger since the economic crash, though the degree of this is of course what is still being overstated.



You can if you like. All I see is theories to disregard the official statements from the league and NHLPA in order to substitute your own numbers. I can't stop you from doing that. I don't have to believe yours are more accurate, though.



Some did, some didn't. Some US teams did, some didn't too. Take out the unusually high increase from Montreal and the Canadian teams didn't really do any differently once the money came in, regardless of where it originated from. It's worth noting that the fact some Canadian teams did not grow even at the rate of the CAD (which indicates their true revenues actually shrank) seems to have been ignored. Stronger CAD at the rates you are claiming should have made for a smooth ratio of performance from the Canadian teams, but this did not happen.



I would have thought it goes without saying that if the US dollar was stronger, the relative contribution of Canadian teams would be lower, since a stronger US dollar raises its value relative to the Canadian dollar by definition. This is pretty basic stuff and the only reason I can see that you would argue against it is because you have misread it somehow. Do you really think Canadian team revenues relative to the total go up if the Canadian dollar goes up but US team revenues relative to the total don't go up if the US dollar goes up? No, you don't believe that, but you seem to be arguing it suddenly.

If you are a money person as you seem to be hinting, you must know that currency is simply a frame of reference. It doesn't matter in the least what it is reported in. Easy math:

Total revenues: 10b US
US revenues to Can revenues: 5b/5b
Dollars: 1:1

Cut the US dollar in half: 15b US total, contributions 5b from US 10b from Canada, Canadian contribution increases from 50% to 67%. Use CAD: 7.5b CAD total, contributions 2.5b from US 5b from Canada, Canadian contribution increases from 50% to 67%. That is the "US dollar got weaker" math. Or, from original numbers, double the strength of Canadian dollar. 15b US total, contributions 5b from US 10b from Canada, Canadian contribution increases from 50% to 67%. Use CAD: 7.5b CAD total, contributions 2.5b from US 5b from Canada, Canadian contribution increases from 50% to 67%. That's the "Canadian dollar got stronger" math.

The numbers stay exactly the same.

And so follows what I said. The ratio of Canadian team revenues to US team revenues does not change whether or not you increase the value of the Canadian dollar or decrease the value of the US dollar at the same relative rate. Therefore, it is just as valid to say the US teams' relative share of the league revenues are underperforming because of a weak US dollar relative to the CAD as it is to say the Canadian teams' relative share of the league revenues are overperforming because of a strong CAD relative to the US dollar. However, because this indicates that the league is actually doing better than might be expected from their revenue, which runs counter to the prevailing opinion of those who dislike the league's leadership, this view is for some reason being disparaged, even though it uses the exact same numbers.

Convert revenues to a third party and it would be blatantly obvious that I am right in this.



The league has already stated it is over 2.9b, but sure, let's use that.



What dates are you using? I've been using a more useful yearly increase of 10%. Using the more likely numbers actually supplied by official sources in your own links puts this at about 29%-30% so far.



Well, thank you for your numbers. They aren't necessarily right, mind you, but its nice to see the assumptions behind them.

Now lets go through your math using the numbers actually given by people with access to the real thing. Given 26% given by the NHLPA and Forbes (which jives with Bettman's statements, though he didn't give a direct number), boosted by a 10% currency gain to about 29% to be kind to you in rounding, and giving the same 2% you're assuming without any numbers from a CBC gain, we now have Canadian revenues at about 870m which oddly enough falls exactly in line with my own estimations from expected gains from 2010 if Canadian teams grew about the same as American teams.

10% lower to drop the currency increase is about 87m. 87m out of 400m is 22%, a bit higher than I was estimating but not out of the ballpark, and the actual amount (rather than the relative percentage) is very much inside what I was suggesting, if a bit at the high end.

Using your math shows my number to be correct using official sources, so unless you believe the NHL and NHLPA were/are lying, the only provable bias is in your own assumptions. I don't have any desire to fight this "1/3" battle with you as you've obviously spent far more time on it than I am willing to go into; I'll just stick with the official numbers given.

Given official numbers, the yearly gains from the Canadian currency is at best a yearly boost of 22% or so each of the last couple years, and since the lockout far less.

And that's undeniable regardless of whether or not Fugu thinks it is... elegant.

:D



Actually, the problem seems to be that you are. You are using your assumptions or subjecting revenue to analysis that runs contrary to official sources that are in your own links. Hey I'm not going to say that is wrong. But you, in turn, cannot say my numbers are wrong while using the numbers actually stated by people who do, in fact, have direct access to the league books.


One other thing Fugu is wrong about - I DID, in fact, separate currency revenue from non-currency revenue - in fact, I showed that currency couldn't possibly be the most significant factor (defining this as 50%+) in league revenues because there simply wasn't enough of a gain.


I don't have time to respond in detail to your post but I will if you wish. Let me make the following quick points however...

1) The issue at hand is the impact that the rise in the $CDN has had on the reported NHL growth numbers.

2) My specific posts have been in response to your claim that the change in $CDN is responsible for about 40-45% of the growth since the downturn is not mathematically possible. (For the record I have never said that if you go back to the beginning of this cba that this would be true as well.)

3) I am fully aware of the numbers you are quoting. I ebven I put in my last post that there were numbers you could cherry pick. And indeed you did exactly what I expected you to do. Though you should know that in this case my use of the term cherry pick was not intened to be derogatory despite its usual connotations. We all do this. Rather in this case there were two claims that it was pretty obvious you would latch onto.

a) NHLPA ----- Canadian teams generate 28% of the NHL revenue.

b) Bettman---The claim that Canadian teams generate 33% of league revenues is false.

There were some claims that you passed up, such as Melnyk's suggestion that 40% of the NHl revuenes come from Canada.

Now why did I give you such easy pickings? Because in fact these two claims do not contradict my calculations. We have discussed these in detail. But Fugu already pointed out that the issue is that the percentage of revenue earned by Canadian teams is fundamentally different than the proportion of revenue earned in $CDN. The reason for this is that all central revenues are split equally amongst all teams. So Central revenues in $CDN will appear in a 4:1 ratio in the balance sheets of american teams which skews your data substantially.

In addition the monies generate by the individual teams at the time I did my calculations were probably 80-85% of the total revenues. (We don't know this for sure but given the TV contracts this is a pretty good guess). So when Bettman said that Canadian teams did not generate 1/3 of the NHL's revenue I have no doubt he is correct. And when Kelly suggested that Canadian teams had 28% of the NHL revenue This is actually perfectly consistent with a number in the range of 31-33% of revenue in $CDN, given that at the time national Tv contracts, the biggest source of non-team based revenues were substantially weighted to $CDN. (I would be happy to explain this further to you if you do not follow my point).

My calculations were based on actual data about specific revenues, including what we can deduce about total revenues form the cap and the CBA, and leake info on real gate receipts and on the national TV contracts. I acknowledge that the data was not complete, hence the error band. BUt You have presented no information that contradicts this since you are really doing an apples to oranges calcualtion.

So you know, I did not say I was a money guy. I said I was a math guy, abstract harmonic analysis to be exact. This is grade two stuff. I have no trouble following your calcualtions nor did I ignore them. I simply stated that they were wrong and showed you why. I stand by that.
 
Last edited:

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
I did not say I was a money guy. I said I was a math guy, abstract harmonic analysis to be exact. This is grade two stuff.

Hardly. Clearly youve' applied theories of Pontryagin Duality, creating a satisfactory state in order to bolster your arguments. And as you know; decomposing the Fourier transform to its radial & spherical components leads to topics' such as Bessel Functions' and Spherical Harmonics', derailing the thread... why would you want to do that?.
 

Fourier

Registered User
Dec 29, 2006
25,439
19,572
Waterloo Ontario
Hardly. Clearly youve' applied theories of Pontryagin Duality, creating a satisfactory state in order to bolster your arguments. And as you know; decomposing the Fourier transform to its radial & spherical components leads to topics' such as Bessel Functions' and Spherical Harmonics', derailing the thread... why would you want to do that?.

Nice...But the classical theory is so 20th century. These days it's all about quantum groups, so the Pontryagin dual is more a philosophical construct than an actual one. This is why I said grade 2 instead of grade 1. :D

As to derailing the thread. It's just Ike and I having a little fun until the puck gets dropped in October.
 

Puckschmuck*

Guest
Wow. Some pretty in-depth analysis here just based on someone getting a raise. I wish I had that kind of free time to research this as well :)
 

Fourier

Registered User
Dec 29, 2006
25,439
19,572
Waterloo Ontario
Wow. Some pretty in-depth analysis here just based on someone getting a raise. I wish I had that kind of free time to research this as well :)

By BOH standards this is pretty straight forward. The stuff you are talking about took about 15 minutes to put together. Any survivor of the Great 1/3 Wars could do the same. :)
 

knorthern knight

Registered User
Mar 18, 2011
4,120
0
GTA
Bettman's problems started long before the recession. The recession just accelerated certain things, or others might say "unmasked".
The NHL is still mostly a gate-driven league. In bad times, people can't afford $4000+ for a season ticket.

The one thing the NHL does control is who gets into their club in the first place. I think it's clear in hindsight to even the most casual of observers that Moyes wasn't going to cooperate with the league he joined.
In my challenge, I did say something about clairvoyance not allowed. :)

You can speculate how it got to that point if you like.
Ellman, the majority owner, ran into financial problems. Who else was available at the time?

I'm starting to see a theme here-- bad owners. It's never Gary's fault. The real point is that this ownership group killed the NHL product in one of the biggest media markets.
Yup

What I think happened is Gary was so relieved someone actually wanted to buy certain teams, he does cartwheels instead of doing his job.
I think we're in violent agreement on this. Is that allowed on this board? :sarcasm:

It's unfortunate really that pro sports ownership has turned to group efforts instead of one owner, for example.

As I mentioned in post 124 of this thread finding good willing owners is Bettman's biggest challenge going forward. Yes, Gary was doing cartwheels at finding someone, other than Balsillie, willing to buy the Thrashers, and whatever teams come up for sale. One reason for ownership groups is that franchise prices have inflated drastically. There simply aren't that many billionaires in the US, yes I said billionaires, who can afford to buy a major league franchise outright, and handle several losing years. Consider Hulsizer, estimated "net worth" in the 300-to-600 million dollar range. He wasn't willing to risk most of his net worth on the Coyotes, and I don't blame him.

Back in AD1 (Atlanta Disaster 1), the average price for an NHL franchise was $8 million, but someone offered Cosens $16 million, and he took it. in AD2 (Atlanta Disaster 2), the purchase price was $160 million.

While we're on the subject of bad owners, who would've known in advance that Hicks was going to royally foul up in Dallas (Rangers and Starts)? Given the problems RIM is having, maybe it's a good thing that Balsillie didn't prevail. With most of his net worth in RIM shares, Balsillie could've been looking at a Cousens or Hicks scenario if he had gotten his hands on the Coyotes. I am NOT going to claim that Gary Bettman knew that Balsillie's net worth was going to take a big hit :) I'm just using it as an example that no hockey commissioner can forsee the future, especially in totally unrelated industries where the owners made their billions in the first place.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->