Brooks:NHLPA proposal details

Status
Not open for further replies.

Master Shake*

Guest
Kritter471 said:
I'd be very interested in seeing that. Because from what I know down here, Hicks losses have come with the Rangers (from 2000-2003) and with the real estate market crashing.


Ill see if I can get at least a media link for you.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
Pepper said:
Nashville benefits if it has the same financial resources to build a team as Toronto, that makes the team more competitive which increases fan support and makes the game popular in the U.S which is exactly what league needs.
only if you believe 1 team is disadvantaged due to payroll disparity.
dr
 

HF2002

Registered User
Aug 20, 2003
2,924
80
Ottawa
Visit site
DR said:
only if you believe 1 team is disadvantaged due to payroll disparity.
dr
There isn't?

How many teams have to trade away potential unrestricted free agents because the team knows if they don't move him for something in return (ie youth, picks) there's no way they can keep him? Or they trade a player because the player holds out for money?
 

Drury_Sakic

Registered User
Jul 25, 2003
4,917
795
www.avalanchedb.com
Master Shake said:
His losses have been in the millions on the stars.

Dallas Stars Team Report


The Dallas Stars
are owned by Thomas Hicks,
who bought them in 1995
for $84 mil.

Team Value1 $ 259 mil (#4) ( I cannot find the 2005 report, this is from the 2004 report, on that list Forbes had the Stars as the #2 valued club)

1-Yr Value Chg. -4%
Ann. Value Chg.2 13%
Debt/Value3 57%
Revenue $103 mil
Operating Income4 $-0.3 mil
Player Expenses5 $74 mil
Gate Receipts6 $49 mil

Forbes report says he lost .3 million last season....... thats actually really good? If the Stars had played 1 more home game in the playoffs he would have turned a profit with a 74 million dollar payroll.... and the 100 million in debt for the new Arena...

Plus the Stars went through a loss of ticket sales, thus lower tickets...for the first time in a long while..

The teams value has been increasing each year since Hicks bought in.. last year was the first year that the value of the franchise had DROPPED, which can at least in some small way be explained by a slowing US market and an unstable political world(US Elections and Iraq)

The Stars have not been losing money.... the Market slowed down.. so the investment Hicks put into the team was not as strong as he would have liked... but thats alot to do with other non-player related investments...


:teach:

(this is not ment to justify the money the players get, only to say that the Stars have not been exactly hemeraging(sp) money)
 
Last edited:

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
HF2002 said:
There isn't?

How many teams have to trade away potential unrestricted free agents because the team knows if they don't move him for something in return (ie youth, picks) there's no way they can keep him? Or they trade a player because the player holds out for money?
great ... whats wrong with that ? besides a few isolated examples, when has a team lost a UFA and that UFA was a good signing for the team that got him ?

its just natural evolution. the older guys are either worth the money and you galdly pay them, or you shed them and get cheaper and in most cases better.

just about every example of extreme financial issues (PIT, EDM, OTT and BUF) had nothing to do with poor economics of the league, but were results of poor economic decisions by the owner and his hired hands.

dr
 

NYIsles1*

Guest
Drury_Sakic said:
The Stars have not been losing money.... the Market slowed down.. so the investment Hicks put into the team was not as strong as he would have liked... but thats alot to do with other non-player related investments...

(this is not ment to justify the money the players get, only to say that the Stars have not been exactly hemeraging(sp) money)
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=88655&hubName=nhl
"Ticket prices are too high and the players have gotten way too much money. That has to change," said Hicks, who notes that his team is among the top three in terms of revenues but still loses money.
 

PeterSidorkiewicz

HFWF Tourney Undisputed Champion
Apr 30, 2004
32,442
9,701
Lansing, MI
I honestly dont want one side to "win" and one side to "lose" in this scenerio. If the PA gives into linkage and the cap which it looks like they may do, I really do hope they get some advantages to this as well. The typical stuff like lower UFA, revenue sharing blah blah blah. And maybe some other incentives we didn't think of yet. Because if both sides aren't happy and the NHL ends up raping the NHLPA in a deal and they just take take take, we'll be right back where we are now in 6-8 years. So lets hope both sides end up coming out equal in all of this.
 

Evil Sather

YOU KILL THE JOE
Jun 27, 2003
2,039
1
YOU MAKE SOME MO
Visit site
Phil Esposito cites in his book the Stars made over $60 million in PROFITS from luxury boxes ALONE in I believe 2001-2002. Maybe 2002-2003, I forget when the book was made.

The Stars are juuust fine.
 

Drury_Sakic

Registered User
Jul 25, 2003
4,917
795
www.avalanchedb.com
NYIsles1 said:
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=88655&hubName=nhl
"Ticket prices are too high and the players have gotten way too much money. That has to change," said Hicks, who notes that his team is among the top three in terms of revenues but still loses money.


So he lost 300k last year..


Chose to cut one player from your roster and you have that 300k...


Plus, sans the lockout, he would have been able to sell the club for at the very least 90 million if not 150 mill or more... plus sell his share in the rink for an amount I don't know..( I would think in the 90-100 million range)

So he would have made a profit off of his investment

You can be last in revenue.. and make a profit...

Just as you can be first in revenue and not make a profit..
 

NYIsles1*

Guest
Drury_Sakic said:
So he lost 300k last year..

You can be last in revenue.. and make a profit...

Just as you can be first in revenue and not make a profit..
That's not the point at all. This team moved here, won a cup and constructed an
ultra-modern building with naming rights, they play to almost a complete seasaon sellout with high ticket prices and go to the playoffs. They have a fantastic television deal.

The question is not that Hicks lost a little money, the question how did he not make at least a 30m dollar profit? Why are the Avlanache in the same situtation? How did the Blues in the modern Saavis center lose 30m?
 

Icey

Registered User
Jan 23, 2005
591
0
Master Shake said:
His losses have been in the millions on the stars.

Lost millions? Guess it depends what you mean by that, but compared to most teams, no he really hasn't lost that much. He actually has made more than he has lost and he has also watched the value of his team grow $200M in ten years. Not a bad return on his investment, considering he paid $84M for the team in 1995.

Hicks had the team for sale for one year and the reason the team did not sell? The same reason many people houses do not sell, he overpriced the team. He wanted close to $300M for the team in 2002, and it wasn't worth the money and he wouldn't sell it for less. He did have a few offers.

But I wouldn't worry too much about poor Tom. He lives in the most expensive house in Dallas at 29,000 square feet valued at $26M. I think he's doing just fine.

And unlike most of the rest of the league, the Stars have actually lost more by not playing than playing.

Year/Franchise Value/Revenue/Net income
1994-95 $43 million $21.7 million $2.2 million
1995-96 $63 million $33.9 million -$1.0 million
1996-97 Not Available
1997-98 $118 million $45.6 million -$2.6 million
1998-99 $149 million $59.4 million -$5.2 million
1999-00 $182 million $72.7 million $2.1 million
2000-01 $207 million $70.0 million -$4.3 million
2001-02 $254 million $96.0 million $6.3 million
2002-03 $270 million $108.0 million $5.6 million
2003-04 $259 million $103.0 million -$0.3 million
 
Last edited:

HF2002

Registered User
Aug 20, 2003
2,924
80
Ottawa
Visit site
DR said:
great ... whats wrong with that ? besides a few isolated examples, when has a team lost a UFA and that UFA was a good signing for the team that got him ?

its just natural evolution. the older guys are either worth the money and you galdly pay them, or you shed them and get cheaper and in most cases better.

dr
A few isolated examples? That's why there's a lockout?
 

Master Shake*

Guest
Didnt have time to look tonight but some quick comments

1. Forbes is full of crap. They also had the owners barely losing money.
2. They cut some salary
3. Turns out the Stars are losing more money during the lockout then if they were playing. That indicates they are doing fairly well. Doesnt mean they are making a profit however. Which leads me to think I was incorrect some to the extent of their losses. But thats what I get for going by memory and not checking first.


259 Mill? That sounds like Forbes math. Franchise values are guess work and the price might include the Arena. Id be surprised if it didnt. Forbes also had the ducks at 118 Mill. Which is like 37% above what they actually sold for. They were sold for 75 mill after sitting on the market for eons. :shakehead
Applying a 37% discount which is more realistic and the Stars are worth 164 mill. Thats more realistic.
 

zeker

Registered User
Mar 29, 2005
25
0
If Brooks is right about these details, then the NHLPA has finally smartened up, and agreed to what the NHL was asking in the first place.

Pity they had to waste a whole season playing silly games instead of hockey games.

Goodenow messed this one up real good.

The players just lost a year of salary and career, and they're getting the same deal they would have got if they hadn't tried to bluff from the very start.
 

Drury_Sakic

Registered User
Jul 25, 2003
4,917
795
www.avalanchedb.com
NYIsles1 said:
That's not the point at all. This team moved here, won a cup and constructed an
ultra-modern building with naming rights, they play to almost a complete seasaon sellout with high ticket prices and go to the playoffs. They have a fantastic television deal.

The question is not that Hicks lost a little money, the question how did he not make at least a 30m dollar profit? Why are the Avlanache in the same situtation? How did the Blues in the modern Saavis center lose 30m?


I would say the Avs and Stars chose to take the risk of losing money... Again.. I say if the Stars had hosted one more playoff game.... or in the case of the Avs if they had made it into the next round they would have turned a profit...

While it would have taken a bit more in the case of the Blues, they were a team built to make the playoffs..and they had a breakdown season... thus they brought in less revenue than was spent...




I've said it once... and I'll say it again... you should NOT buy a sports team to make ooddles of money.... Its an investment in a hobby.. a toy... If your break even, loose a tad, or make a small amount you have done well..

While I agree the current values and prices of players are WAY too much... I will use the PA's argument that Tom Hicks chose to give out every dollar those contracts cost....The reason the Avs spend to profit every year are because for Kronke they are more than that.... They lead a sports empire in Denver for Stan.. and should have been flagshiping his network this fall, brining in countless revenue for himself..

Hicks has no one to blame than him self(versus teh smaller markets who should also be blaming him)
 
Last edited:

CantHaveTkachev

Legends
Nov 30, 2004
49,452
29,190
St. OILbert, AB
DR said:
great ... whats wrong with that ? besides a few isolated examples, when has a team lost a UFA and that UFA was a good signing for the team that got him ?

its just natural evolution. the older guys are either worth the money and you galdly pay them, or you shed them and get cheaper and in most cases better.

just about every example of extreme financial issues (PIT, EDM, OTT and BUF) had nothing to do with poor economics of the league, but were results of poor economic decisions by the owner and his hired hands.

dr
so it was a poor decision to get rid of Guerin in his prime even though there was NO WAY we'd be able to sign?

what about getting rid of Weight when he was about to reach UFA age and he'd be commanding 7 mil/season?
I think some decisions were made based on the economic situation of the league
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
e-townchamps said:
so it was a poor decision to get rid of Guerin in his prime even though there was NO WAY we'd be able to sign?
so, should the players sign a deal where they never have the right to leave ? point being, so what he left, its not like you could force him to sign a deal if he didnt want to be in EDM. a good team must be prepared for this.

what about getting rid of Weight when he was about to reach UFA age and he'd be commanding 7 mil/season?
I think some decisions were made based on the economic situation of the league
how come CGY could afford Iginla and EDM cant afford Weight ? EDM made a decision, just like every team in the league does. they let him go, it hurt STL more than EDM.

dr
 

Crazy_Ike

Cookin' with fire.
Mar 29, 2005
9,081
0
Calgary can't afford Iginla. They signed him knowing full well they'd be taking a short term hit, hoping that it would be balanced out by a fair CBA.

For Edmonton with shakier ownership, it was too long to wait, not to mention Weight is nowhere near the player Iginla is.
 

Drury_Sakic

Registered User
Jul 25, 2003
4,917
795
www.avalanchedb.com
To be fair... Weight and Iggy are 2 different situations..


Iggy is the future of the Club and will be a top 5-10 player for a long time...

Doug, while being a top line player is/was not of the same mold as Iggy...



Taking short term hits are how you build up a team...You either keep that young talent who has turned the corner, build around him.. and hope to keep winning to be able to afford another player to complement him.. thus to keep winning.. and add another player around him.. and so on...

Or you move him for cheaper, younger, more affordable talent..


thats how sports work...


Unless you are in New York(or Chicago Cubs), every team has a finite revenue source that grows or shrinks depending on how well your team plays and if/how far they go in the playoffs...

Granted, some teams start with a slighly larger pool to start with, but they still play by the same rule.... If Colorado went into a 4-5 season noise dive the revenue would shrink and along with it so would the money put into the roster, once the team drafted or traded for a core player who started to turn things around...more people would come to the games, the team might make the playoffs and another player or two would be added.. and so on...
 

CantHaveTkachev

Legends
Nov 30, 2004
49,452
29,190
St. OILbert, AB
DR said:
so, should the players sign a deal where they never have the right to leave ? point being, so what he left, its not like you could force him to sign a deal if he didnt want to be in EDM. a good team must be prepared for this.
how do you know he didn't want to be in Edmonton? the reason we dealt him is because WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO AFFORD HIM WHEN HIS CONTRACT WAS UP...

how come CGY could afford Iginla and EDM cant afford Weight ? EDM made a decision, just like every team in the league does. they let him go, it hurt STL more than EDM.

dr
because a)our money was tied up in Smyth, Salo, Brewer
b)Calgary had Iginla and no one else (a bunch of 3rd and 4th liners making 800k max)

and btw, 12 points of 7 playoff games against Vancouver in '03 makes him pretty valuable IMO
 

CantHaveTkachev

Legends
Nov 30, 2004
49,452
29,190
St. OILbert, AB
Crazy_Ike said:
Calgary can't afford Iginla. They signed him knowing full well they'd be taking a short term hit, hoping that it would be balanced out by a fair CBA.

For Edmonton with shakier ownership, it was too long to wait, not to mention Weight is nowhere near the player Iginla is.
exactly.

Ownership pretty much NEEDED Iginla because if they didn't sign him in '02, the fans would've been really mad

their team was going nowhere and their only shining light had just won the Art Ross and Rocket Richard trophy...
the gamble paid off last year but how long can they afford to pay him 7-8 mil per?
 

Drury_Sakic

Registered User
Jul 25, 2003
4,917
795
www.avalanchedb.com
Well..

If they keep getting into the playoffs(which the odds of that happening looked good going into last season) and possibly keep winning a few rounds here and ther(which they had an outside shot at) they could have likely afforded to pay that to him for the long haul..

thats how it works.. pay the guy... and if you keep winning.. you can afford to pay the guy.. if not.. you cannot afford to keep him so you let him go..
 

Marconius

Registered User
Jan 27, 2003
1,520
0
Visit site
Drury_Sakic said:
Well..

If they keep getting into the playoffs(which the odds of that happening looked good going into last season) and possibly keep winning a few rounds here and ther(which they had an outside shot at) they could have likely afforded to pay that to him for the long haul..

thats how it works.. pay the guy... and if you keep winning.. you can afford to pay the guy.. if not.. you cannot afford to keep him so you let him go..

Correct if I'm wrong, but didn't Calgary barely break even/still lose money last season? In Iginla they didn't just have the top player (arguably) in the game, but he was young & upcoming as well. On top of that, they knew that letting Iggy go would of have been suicidal for their fan base after the previous years of hardship. Those are an awful lot of factors that had to combine for Calgary to even think about signing a contract as large as they did. Basically what I'm saying is that it was much, much more then simply thinking Iggy's contract = playoff round = profit.

They made it as deep as a team can possibly make it in the playoffs and still not did not make any semblance of a profit. So that means that any time a small market club has the opportunity to to sign a premier player, they need to count on making it to the SCF to have a shot at breaking even? That's a pretty far cry from your large market clubs who pick up 5 million dollar players at the deadline without blinking.
 

HF2002

Registered User
Aug 20, 2003
2,924
80
Ottawa
Visit site
The point isn't necessarily that a team like Calgary has to wrangle with keeping one player. The point is that the average fan needs to feel secure enough that his favourite team can at least start the season off on the reasonably same footing financially as any other team in the league. Otherwise they lose interest.

Any true fan can handle some lean years as long as there's a reasonable chance that there'll be some good years with a real shot at winning. It's one thing when a team has to make choices about who to keep, but when they know they have to trade one player this season, and then another one in two years, it begins to be a hopeless situation for the fan. Do fans in Calgary really expect that they can have an amazing run each year?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->