Esche: "They're being led by a mad man."

[Digger12]

And amid all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, Esche has supposedly apologised for his remarks (at least according to Clarke)...

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=103694

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

What is an acceptable NHL price? Where is the cut off? Give me a number.

There is no number. But if the fans expect to carry an average payroll, they had better charge enough to generate average total ticket revenues. The Oilers charge 70% of what the Canucks charge, draw fewer people and then whine about fairness because the Canucks have a bigger payroll.

Why don't the Oilers charge $50 US a ticket? Why don't they at least charge the NHL average? If the team can't do better than $50 million US in revenue, they are in the wrong league. Personally I think that like Vancouver, Ottawa and Calgary, the Oilers will do a lot better than $50 million US in revenue if they built a good team. But hey, Oiler fans tell me that is impossible. Revenues are maxed out. If so, they are in the wrong league.

The arguments you put forward tell me that the NHL should/would consist of 8 or so teams. Is this an argument that puts the game first?

Why does it tell you that? The NHL wouldn't miss a beat losing six teams. The league would probably improve if they lost ten teams. The rest would compete in a wide open system. The idea Edmonton is like most teams is silly. It is the exception. On one extreme there is the Rangers and Toronto. They are probably the only teams that can make really good money with a loser.

At the other extreme is - they claim - Edmonton, Pittsburgh and Carolina. Perhaps there are a few others, but Ottawa is apparently above the line, and Edmonton is below it. Fine, get rid of Edmonton and all the teams that can't compete with Ottawa. How hard is that to figure out? A system that works for Ottawa and Vancouver and Calgary, but doesn't work in Edmonton? Why on earth would anyone change a system for Edmonton?

Why?

You say that you don't care what the players make or what the owners make, well if that is actually the case then why do you argue that the correct CBA structure is one that will continue to over pay the players but financially compromise many/most of the owners? Why don't you, for the good of the game, take a position that will see team building put back in the hands of the GM and take the owners out of the newspapers sports section?

I don't think it would be for the good of the game. I'm to the point I don't think anything Bettman wants is good for the game. If the owners are telling the truth, the good of the game means turfing the Edmontons and Carolinas. If the owners don't want to pay the money on salaries, they don't have to pay the money.

The Oilers are an example of a team that doesn't want to pay the money, so they don't and they make a profit. That's fine, too, if only the whining would stop.

That issue is, how do you give every team the a level playing field in terms of building their teams?

The playing field is as even as it will ever be. Ottawa, Calgary and Vancouver manage to compete, the league is fair. If market size mattered the league would be dominated by New York, Toronto, Chicago and Los Angeles.

Tom

 

[copperandblue]

There is no number. But if the fans expect to carry an average payroll, they had better charge enough to generate average total ticket revenues. The Oilers charge 70% of what the Canucks charge, draw fewer people and then whine about fairness because the Canucks have a bigger payroll.

As I mentioned before, if the Canucks are the benchmark then this is a three team league.

Vancouver has the 3rd highest ticket prices in the league.

Is it for the good of the game to demand everybody pay what Vancouver is paying?

(and for the record, I have never heard an Oiler fan whine about keeping up with the Canucks payroll)

Why don't the Oilers charge $50 US a ticket? Why don't they at least charge the NHL average? If the team can't do better than $50 million US in revenue, they are in the wrong league. Personally I think that like Vancouver, Ottawa and Calgary, the Oilers will do a lot better than $50 million US in revenue if they built a good team. But hey, Oiler fans tell me that is impossible. Revenues are maxed out. If so, they are in the wrong league.

They do pay above the NHL average. Even at a TODAYS (not seen since '92) conversion rates they charge above the NHL average.

These kind of arguments simply equate to keeping up with the Joneses, how long can that last?

Why does it tell you that? The NHL wouldn't miss a beat losing six teams. The league would probably improve if they lost ten teams. The rest would compete in a wide open system. The idea Edmonton is like most teams is silly. It is the exception. On one extreme there is the Rangers and Toronto. They are probably the only teams that can make really good money with a loser.

First off I disagree completely that the league is better off if they lose 6 teams but even if you subscribe to that, it would take alot more than 6 teams to make the difference.

Where does it stop. I mean if the benchmark is they ticket prices that Vancouver charges then your already down 27 teams.

Explain how Edmonton is the exception. Please. I simply don't buy it, I see Edmonton as occupying a place in your crosshairs and therefore it means they don't rate, but in all seriousness how much different is Edmonton from;

Buffalo
Tampa Bay
Pheonix
Florida
Atlanta
Nashville
Columbus
Pittsburgh
Minnesota
Chicago
NYI
New Jersey
Calgary
Carolina
Anaheim
San Jose
Washington

At the other extreme is - they claim - Edmonton, Pittsburgh and Carolina. Perhaps there are a few others, but Ottawa is apparently above the line, and Edmonton is below it. Fine, get rid of Edmonton and all the teams that can't compete with Ottawa. How hard is that to figure out? A system that works for Ottawa and Vancouver and Calgary, but doesn't work in Edmonton? Why on earth would anyone change a system for Edmonton?

Ohh I see, Ottawa is the benchmark, then we are down to a two team league if you go off of average ticket pricing.

This system has worked for Calgary?

See this lends itself to part of my other reply, you claim you don't care about what the players make or what the owners make and yet to hold up some extremes as examples as the way it SHOULD be. If you truly didn't care you would look at a solution that allows every team to build on equal footing and not pay attention to wether or not the Ontario Teachers Pension grew by 20 mil while Melnyk only made
5 mil and the EIG only made 1 mil...

I don't think it would be for the good of the game. I'm to the point I don't think anything Bettman wants is good for the game. If the owners are telling the truth, the good of the game means turfing the Edmontons and Carolinas. If the owners don't want to pay the money on salaries, they don't have to pay the money.

Really? You don't think that creating a system where every team in the league has the same advantages or disadvantages when they build and manage their rosters is good for the league?

You really think that the good of the league hinges on the ability/willingness to pay money on salaries? Do the players get better if you pay them more?

The Oilers are an example of a team that doesn't want to pay the money, so they don't and they make a profit. That's fine, too, if only the whining would stop.

But if you don't care what the owners make then why not create a system that allows them to keep their profits AND spend on players?

The playing field is as even as it will ever be. Ottawa, Calgary and Vancouver manage to compete, the league is fair. If market size mattered the league would be dominated by New York, Toronto, Chicago and Los Angeles.

Tom

No the playing field is not fair. The playing field is a horserace to the playoffs by 8, virtually gauranteed, teams and 22 toss ups followed by a crap shoot when the final 16 are decided. No not fair, not level, not equal footings for all...

Why are you so leary about putting the GM's back in the game and letting them create their teams based on their hockey ability?

 

[gary69]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but who jobs is it to tell the refs to call the rule like they are wrote? Dont we hear year after year the NHL is cracking down on (inset which offense) But that doesn't last all year, heck it maybe last a 1/4 of the season.

The players are doing whatever it takes to win, if that involves obstruction hooking, holding, etc they are gonna do it. Especially if it's not being called.

This is the biggest problem in the NHL today, not who gets paid what, whether players get 70% or 50% or whatever or if owners make 100% or whatever losses/profits a year. The market will eventually even out to the standard of the product, but a real hockey fan don't want to wait until that.

A real hockey fan wouldn't mind even if his trapping, obstruction, hooking and holding team gets to play penalty kill 50 minutes a game for a year or two, if that's what it takes to get teams playing hockey again the way it's supposed to played.

Enough with this parity s**t, let the best players and the best teams be the best!

 

[dawgbone]

There is no number. But if the fans expect to carry an average payroll, they had better charge enough to generate average total ticket revenues. The Oilers charge 70% of what the Canucks charge, draw fewer people and then whine about fairness because the Canucks have a bigger payroll.

And there is where you are wrong. Last time I checked, Oiler fans don't complain Vancouver has a higher payroll... but once again, you sure don't mind telling good stories devoid of actual facts.

The Oilers don't complain about the Canucks... get that through your head. The Canucks have a very reasonable payroll, and Oiler fans accept that. The problem, is the payroll of that of the Rangers or Leafs, who the Oilers have no chance in matching, and who's individual signings affect the Oilers. Your team also does a fair amount of complaining regarding those teams as well...

Why don't the Oilers charge $50 US a ticket? Why don't they at least charge the NHL average? If the team can't do better than $50 million US in revenue, they are in the wrong league. Personally I think that like Vancouver, Ottawa and Calgary, the Oilers will do a lot better than $50 million US in revenue if they built a good team. But hey, Oiler fans tell me that is impossible. Revenues are maxed out. If so, they are in the wrong league.

So you are telling me a team that generats $48million a year in revenue shouldn't be in the league? How ignorant is that? $48 million is a hell of a lot of money. Why shouldn't a leauge where the lowest team generates $48 mil have a 30 team league? That is an insane amount of money we are talking about... enough money for 30 teams and 700 players to all make decent money.

As for your continued crap if they build a good team... Calgary had 5 more points than Edmonton, and made the playoffs for the 1st time in 7 years... does that constitute a good team?

The Canucks must not qualify as a good team either, with their whopping 1 playoff series win in a decade...

What's a good team?

Why does it tell you that? The NHL wouldn't miss a beat losing six teams. The league would probably improve if they lost ten teams. The rest would compete in a wide open system. The idea Edmonton is like most teams is silly. It is the exception. On one extreme there is the Rangers and Toronto. They are probably the only teams that can make really good money with a loser.

Evidently, 30 wealthy business men disagree with you... and I will take their opinion over yours. If it was better, it would happen. You know what, if you weren't so pathetically jealous of the fact Edmonton has routinely beat the snot out Vancouver teams, you might be occasionally taken seriously. I bet you weren't talking this way when the Canucks were the joke of the NHL a few years ago.

At the other extreme is - they claim - Edmonton, Pittsburgh and Carolina. Perhaps there are a few others, but Ottawa is apparently above the line, and Edmonton is below it. Fine, get rid of Edmonton and all the teams that can't compete with Ottawa. How hard is that to figure out? A system that works for Ottawa and Vancouver and Calgary, but doesn't work in Edmonton? Why on earth would anyone change a system for Edmonton?

Why?

Then why hasn't the league folded them? Maybe, these 30 corporations feel they are better as a group of 30, with the $2.1 billion in revenues than they are generating, as well as the opportunity to grow the fan base and to hopefully get a good TV deal down the road.

They aren't changing the system just for Edmonton. It's being changed for the Senators and Canucks and Flames as well... each and everyone of those teams does as much complaining as the Oilers.

I don't think it would be for the good of the game. I'm to the point I don't think anything Bettman wants is good for the game. If the owners are telling the truth, the good of the game means turfing the Edmontons and Carolinas. If the owners don't want to pay the money on salaries, they don't have to pay the money.

Explain how that makes the game of hockey better? Explain how that helps dismal TV ratings? Sure, it makes you happy because a team that has done nothing but humiliate your team for years is gone, but how is hockey better?

You'll still have trapping, you'll still have clutching and grabbing. Sure, the offensive players on each team are better, but so are all the defensive ones... and as we've seen, defense wins in the NHL.

The Oilers are an example of a team that doesn't want to pay the money, so they don't and they make a profit. That's fine, too, if only the whining would stop.

Then the Canucks should be gone too, because they make money and they whine.

The playing field is as even as it will ever be. Ottawa, Calgary and Vancouver manage to compete, the league is fair. If market size mattered the league would be dominated by New York, Toronto, Chicago and Los Angeles.

Tom

For how long? How long will Ottawa, Vancouver and Calgary be able to compete? Calgary already is a one-trick pony, Vancouver is on it's way to becoming one, and Ottawa is going to have 6 of the better players in the league price them out of existence.

Vancouver fans have already shown how fickle they can be... do you think they'd be able to sign any of the top players released from these 10 teams? Nope. Ottawa? Good luck. Calgary? LOL... no. The Rangers, leafs, Wings would snatch up all that talent, increasing the gap even further.

If you cannot see that salaries in the NHL keep getting higher and higher, that's up to you. Sure, the Canucks can afford Nazzy, Bertuzzi, Ohlund and Jovo... but what happens if the Sedin's put up 70 points next year and become $3mil players?

Vancouver and Ottawa are in a position where a good chunk of their players aren't earning their maximum potential yet.

 

[chara]

To say that the owners are being led by a madman shows Esche doesn't know that Bettman was hired by the owners for this very showdown.

In 1989, NBA Commissioner David Stern broke that union and forced a salary cap on it. The NHL took note and replaced the likeable John Ziegler with NBA guy Bettman. Bettman wanted to do this in 94 but the owners didn't have the stomachs for it. Apparantly, they do now.

If Bettman has majority approval from the owners, NHL hockey will not return unless there's a cap.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

So you are telling me a team that generats $48million a year in revenue shouldn't be in the league? How ignorant is that? $48 million is a hell of a lot of money.

It is $22 million lower than the league average, and this is after the province kicks in money it skims from the players and after currency equalization. There are probably about six teams with revenues in that ballpark. Take that $300 million out of league revenues and the other 24 teams average $75 million in revenues.

At what point should teams start getting turfed? So even after subsidies, the Oilers are behind by $27 million. How much is too much? I'm told the Oilers can't squeeze any more money out of their market so as league revenues go up, the Oilers will fall further and further behind.

When do we decide they are a lost cause? A $27 million revenue shortfall is okay? Fans of every other team should cough up $5 million each so that Edmonton and the others can play? Or the players should play at a rate that pretends the league is full of teams with $50 million revenue streams?

Personally I think that if the Oilers were as good as the Canucks or the Senators they would have much higher revenues. I think if they built a really good team, they would be able to afford them just like the Canucks and Senators do. It is Oiler fans who insist they can't pay more.

If that is true, dumping the Oilers is the correct solution.

If it is not true and Edmonton revenues will take a big jump if they have a winner, Oiler fans should quit whining about Weight and payroll and start whining about the Oiler record of player development. They draft as badly as the Rangers. You can't win that way.

The Canucks must not qualify as a good team either, with their whopping 1 playoff series win in a decade...

The fans decide that. Canuck fans think their team is so good they are throwing amazing amounts of money at the team. Apparently being good or winning doesn't matter to Oiler fans because they would spend the same on a winner as they do a loser. When the Canucks were losing, their revenues were awful. They are now winning, so the revenues are great.

I bet you weren't talking this way when the Canucks were the joke of the NHL a few years ago.

You'd lose the bet. I applauded all of the trades even though emotionally they hurt very much. I predicted the Canucks were going to dump Messier and Cassels and cheered when the team did. I knew the only way we could get better was to dump everyone over 27 and find as many kids as we could. I had many arguments with Canuck fans over this topic. I told them to quit whining on more than one occasion. I told Ottawa fans to quit whining too.

Then why hasn't the league folded them? Maybe, these 30 corporations feel they are better as a group of 30, with the $2.1 billion in revenues than they are generating, as well as the opportunity to grow the fan base and to hopefully get a good TV deal down the road.

If they really believed this they would share revenues. If the owners benefit from having 30 teams including some weak sisters, they should pay for it. This whole "there is plenty of money for 30 healthy franchises" is misleading and disingenuous. It is a true statement if there was revenue sharing, but there is no revenue sharing of any significance.

Hopefully a good TV deal? How long has the NHL been using that ridiculous dream? You don't believe it do you? How stupid do you think these owners are? They expanded to 30 franchises because the existing owners got a share of $570 million US. Period. End of story. If teams fold, nobody gets their money back.

If the NHL ever does get good ratings in the United States it will be because there are winning teams in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago and Los Angeles. That was the formula for the $150 million a year Fox deal. The Rangers were winning. Bourque, Neely, Oates in Boston. Gretzky in LA. Lindros in Philly. If you think the existence of Edmonton, Nashville and Buffalo would make a lick of difference to a TV deal, you are nuts. The only thing that matters is big ratings in the big US markets.

Vancouver and Ottawa are in a position where a good chunk of their players aren't earning their maximum potential yet.

So? All this means is these guys are going to get better. They are both already good teams.

If you cannot see that salaries in the NHL keep getting higher and higher, that's up to you. Sure, the Canucks can afford Nazzy, Bertuzzi, Ohlund and Jovo... but what happens if the Sedin's put up 70 points next year and become $3mil players?

If the Sedins are scoring 70 points a year, the Canucks are a great team. They will happily pay. If they want, they can make up the money by dumping Salo and or Malik. Linden will either retire or take another pay cut. They will dump Cloutier and give his job to Auld. If Henrik is getting 70 points, they may deal Morrison. They have lots of options. If the Sedins start scoring 70 points a year, Nonis will be very, very happy.

I think the best strategy is to keep the payroll at a little over average. If you go much higher than that, the team is getting too old. I always like to have improving players on my team. I don't believe in signing expensive free agents. I'll patch with them here and there, but if I expect a 31 year old guy to come in and be a key piece of my core, I don't think the team is very good.

Tom

 

[copperandblue]

It is $22 million lower than the league average, and this is after the province kicks in money it skims from the players and after currency equalization.

Not exactly, if the TV revenue is never going to come and viability is based on gate revenue then the Oilers are in around #10 in the league, still, I guess that's a bit of an improvement from the three team or two team league you suggested above.

As far as subsidies go, what about all the arena subsidies in the states, tax breaks to the teams, the same entertainment tax that you suggest is such a gift in Alberta also exists for most US cities, what about the outright cheque that the Devils get just for playing where they are? There are lots of examples of such "gifts" you refer too, it's not exclusive to Alberta.

At what point should teams start getting turfed?

Speaking for myself I think that no teams need to get turfed. This is a good question to throw back at you though... a question asked a number of times with no answer.

I think the best strategy is to keep the payroll at a little over average.

So if this is your strategy and your strategy is expected to work, then how high can we expect salaries to go? If your always trying to stay "a little above average" then it again becomes a case of keeping up with the Joneses. Not a real good plan imo.

 

[dawgbone]

It is $22 million lower than the league average, and this is after the province kicks in money it skims from the players and after currency equalization. There are probably about six teams with revenues in that ballpark. Take that $300 million out of league revenues and the other 24 teams average $75 million in revenues.

At what point should teams start getting turfed? So even after subsidies, the Oilers are behind by $27 million. How much is too much? I'm told the Oilers can't squeeze any more money out of their market so as league revenues go up, the Oilers will fall further and further behind.

When do we decide they are a lost cause? A $27 million revenue shortfall is okay? Fans of every other team should cough up $5 million each so that Edmonton and the others can play? Or the players should play at a rate that pretends the league is full of teams with $50 million revenue streams?

Doesn't the league benefit when they can have 30 teams, and have a $2.1 bil industry? Doesn't the PA benefit when they can have a 30 team league with lots of players making money (or shouldn't that be their goal anyways).

If the NHL has their 30 team league, with varrying amounts of revenues, doesn't it benefit the upper teams if a salary cap of some sort is instituted not based on the top revenues, but all of them?

Sure, you take out 4 teams and $300 million, which leaves $1.8bil divided amongst 24 teams. If we are talking about capping at 50% of revenues, in a 30 team league, the salary cap is $35 million. In a 24 team league, the salary cap is now $38mil. That's $3mil cutting into the profits of every team.

I think $3mil / year is enough to keep 6 franchises around.

Personally I think that if the Oilers were as good as the Canucks or the Senators they would have much higher revenues. I think if they built a really good team, they would be able to afford them just like the Canucks and Senators do. It is Oiler fans who insist they can't pay more.

If that is true, dumping the Oilers is the correct solution.

Did the Canucks increase their revenues before increasing their payroll, or increase their payroll first to make the team better in order to increase revenues?

Considering they have only had 2 years of any kind of success, I find it hard to beleive it was the first.

If it is not true and Edmonton revenues will take a big jump if they have a winner, Oiler fans should quit whining about Weight and payroll and start whining about the Oiler record of player development. They draft as badly as the Rangers. You can't win that way.

The Canucks have also had a terrible draft record as well... what does that say to you? Both teams built more through trades than they did through drafting... the difference is, even when Vancouver was an 10th place team, or a 9th place team, they had an owner willing to pay out of pocket, or at a loss to keep certain players.

The fans decide that. Canuck fans think their team is so good they are throwing amazing amounts of money at the team. Apparently being good or winning doesn't matter to Oiler fans because they would spend the same on a winner as they do a loser. When the Canucks were losing, their revenues were awful. They are now winning, so the revenues are great.

And what happens when the Canucks start losing again? Are all their fans going to scurry away back under their holes and hide again?

That's a better market than Edmonton? Fans who'll come out and support the team when it wins, but when it loses, it drops down into the poor echelon of franchises.

You'd lose the bet. I applauded all of the trades even though emotionally they hurt very much. I predicted the Canucks were going to dump Messier and Cassels and cheered when the team did. I knew the only way we could get better was to dump everyone over 27 and find as many kids as we could. I had many arguments with Canuck fans over this topic. I told them to quit whining on more than one occasion. I told Ottawa fans to quit whining too.

So you are saying you would have said the Canucks from then should have folded, or been taken out of the league, because they were a low revenue generating team?

If they really believed this they would share revenues. If the owners benefit from having 30 teams including some weak sisters, they should pay for it. This whole "there is plenty of money for 30 healthy franchises" is misleading and disingenuous. It is a true statement if there was revenue sharing, but there is no revenue sharing of any significance.

No, of course not, because it doesn't help the bottom lines of any of the big market teams, which is why they want a cap. It's simple business.

Don't you think the Owners in Vancouver would rather have a $35 mil payroll instead of a $45mil payroll? Even if they were paying $5mil in revenue sharing? Revenue sharing now is meaningless, because it doesn't benefit anyone. Put a cap in, then the benefits of revenue sharing are there.

Why? It goes back to my example up top. The more teams there are, the more teams you have to divide the cap amount by. And with a Cap in place, Toronto is happy because they will have their $60 million in profits. Edmonton is happy because they are on a level financial field with everyone. Imagine that, both sides of the coin enjoying what they have!

Hopefully a good TV deal? How long has the NHL been using that ridiculous dream? You don't believe it do you? How stupid do you think these owners are? They expanded to 30 franchises because the existing owners got a share of $570 million US. Period. End of story. If teams fold, nobody gets their money back.

Exposure to the game in non-traditional markets can go a long way to establishing the game throughout the United States. With a Cap in place, these teams can remain profitable, while building a fan base, and increasing the exposure of the game, and hopefully increase the National fanbase.

If the NHL ever does get good ratings in the United States it will be because there are winning teams in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago and Los Angeles. That was the formula for the $150 million a year Fox deal. The Rangers were winning. Bourque, Neely, Oates in Boston. Gretzky in LA. Lindros in Philly. If you think the existence of Edmonton, Nashville and Buffalo would make a lick of difference to a TV deal, you are nuts. The only thing that matters is big ratings in the big US markets.

Do you not think the existence of Edmonton helps the t.v. deal with CBC (which is pretty big)?

And I think it had less to do with teams winning, than hockey actually being entertaining back then. The more markets that are willing to turn their T.V. sets to the NHL the better. The NFL doesn't need winning teams in all their major markets, because people actually want to watch their product!

The same can't be said for the NHL, because people either A) Don't like it, or B). Don't get it. The only way that will change is to expose them to hockey.

So? All this means is these guys are going to get better. They are both already good teams.

Sure, but it also means their price tags increase.

If the Sedins are scoring 70 points a year, the Canucks are a great team. They will happily pay. If they want, they can make up the money by dumping Salo and or Malik. Linden will either retire or take another pay cut. They will dump Cloutier and give his job to Auld. If Henrik is getting 70 points, they may deal Morrison. They have lots of options. If the Sedins start scoring 70 points a year, Nonis will be very, very happy.

Really? Is that why they've refused to address their desparate need for a starting goalie?

Or a first line centre? If they would be happy to pay the Sedins when they reach 70 points, shouldn't they be happy now to address those needs. After all, it will make them a much better team.

I think the best strategy is to keep the payroll at a little over average. If you go much higher than that, the team is getting too old. I always like to have improving players on my team. I don't believe in signing expensive free agents. I'll patch with them here and there, but if I expect a 31 year old guy to come in and be a key piece of my core, I don't think the team is very good.

Tom

Your team can't afford to get the main piece it needs to be a real contender... do you think the Canucks actually think Cloutier can do it?

You'd think the bitter disappointments he's put them through would wake them up. He's just the best that they can do right now, given the current state of league economics.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Not exactly, if the TV revenue is never going to come and viability is based on gate revenue then the Oilers are in around #10 in the league, still, I guess that's a bit of an improvement from the three team or two team league you suggested above.

Who said anything about television revenues never coming around? A National TV deal in the US is a non-starter, but TV revenues are a very big deal. Canuck TV revenue is now $30 million a year. So is the advertising money. What matters is revenues. Who cares whether a dollar comes from a ticket or an advertisement on ther boards.

The point is that revenues are local. No big TV contract is going to come along to bail out the weak links. Nobody is going to give the Oilers an NHL team just because. They aren't going to put an NHL team in Green Bay or Prince George or Saskatoon either. NHL revenues are local. That's a fact. Sink or swim.

Speaking for myself I think that no teams need to get turfed. This is a good question to throw back at you though... a question asked a number of times with no answer.

What question are you talking about? At what point do revenues fall so much, the team should be turfed? I wouldn't make that choice. The Oilers can hang around as long as they want with their $50 million in revenues. If they don't think they can survive on that, fine by me. Fold and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. If they can survive on that, fine by me, too.

If those revenues would not go above the NHL average even if they had a good team, the franchise is doomed to mediocrity and Edmonton is not an NHL market. If those revenues would zoom if they had the Edmonton Canucks or Senators, they will have the revenues to afford a winner. In that case, what's the whining about? Tell me you are disadvantaged after you build a good team and you can't afford it.

So if this is your strategy and your strategy is expected to work, then how high can we expect salaries to go? If your always trying to stay "a little above average" then it again becomes a case of keeping up with the Joneses. Not a real good plan imo.

How high can we expect hockey revenues go? When revenues flatten, so do salaries.

Tom

 

[dawgbone]

How high can we expect hockey revenues go? When revenues flatten, so do salaries.

Tom

Are you sure about that?

Say, in a 2 team league, Toronto and Vancouver, the revenue is growing along. Toronto is now at $120mil, Vancouver at $60million.

Are you telling me, that if revenues remain at that level for the next couple of years, neither Toronto's, nor Vancouver's payroll will go up?

I doubt it.

 

[degroat*]

Running the game into the ground is best for the owners? The league spent the last five years relentlessly trashing the product to achieve economic goals. He is supposed to do what is best for the owners. He has failed miserably. Why isn't that a dismissal offense?



Again, this is an impossible contradiction. On the one hand, Bettman defenders and owner apologists say the league is in desperate shape, eventually doomed if the owners do not get what they want. On the other hand, the guy in charge for the past ten years has been great for the league.

No wonder Bettman's favourite talking point is "This is not about blame. This is about where we are." Sorry, Gary. The buck stops there. The league was perceived to be in terrific shape when he took over. Now we have armageddon. So surprise that Gary doesn't want to talk about blame.

Bettman defenders and owner apologists love to lecture hockey players about life in the real world. Why don't we turn the same standard on Bettman? Where in the real world does the guy in charge gets to say "This is not about blame. This is about where we are" after managing the operation into the ground?



Of course Bettman should be blamed for all that is wrong. The owners run the league. They put him in charge. I am sure the owners give him credit for the revenue increases, but we are fans, not owners. That money came out of our pockets. Again we have an impossible contradiction.

On the one hand Bettman defenders and owner apologists decry high ticket prices. On the other they applaud Bettman for increasing revenues. Explain that.



Bettman is in charge of the officials and Bettman is in charge of the process that leads to rule changes. Bettman is like the CEO and the Board of Governors is like the Board of Directors. Under his watch the league claims to have lost $1.8 billion. Under his watch the league claims to have lost nearly half a billion dollars in the past two years. Under his watch, eating contests draw higher ratings on ESPN than hockey. This isn't about blame, no sir. If it was about blame, the guy is sacked. That's a very good reason to believe the owner's claims are wildly exaggerated. If they are not wildly exaggerated, Bettman would surely be sent packing as an incompetent boob.

If it was about blame, there is no way the Board of Governors would have let him lead them into what is going to turn out to be a disastrous confrontation with the players. The league is trying to win this dispute by painting the product - the product! - as the greedy villain instead of the athletic hero. Even if they win, the earn the undying enmity of the guys they are trying to sell to us.

The absolutely best spin you can put on the financial state of the game and Gary Bettman is that he successfully priced hockey out of the reach of the average fan and substantially increased revenues for the owners. Hurrah for Gary! Whereupon the same owners foolishly turned around and gave all that money and more to the players. Greedy players!

It's not about blame. We are where we are. Indeed.

Tom

Perhaps you could answer this question for me:

If Bettman has 'successfully priced hockey out of the reach of the average fan' then how in the hell do more than 2,000 more people attend each and every hockey game than they did when he took over?

That, my friend, is an impossible contradiction.

Fact: Bettman more than tripled the national TV deal.

Fact: More than 2,000 more people go to every NHL game than they did when he took over.

Fact: Revenues have increased by 1.6B since Bettman took over.

Fact: Player salaries have outgrown revenues.

Fact: If the owners didn't think Bettman was doing his job, then he wouldn't have a job.

Fact: The ONLY thing Bettman could have done to prevent the player salaries from getting out of wack was to have a cap in 1994.

 

[copperandblue]

Who said anything about television revenues never coming around? A National TV deal in the US is a non-starter, but TV revenues are a very big deal. Canuck TV revenue is now $30 million a year. So is the advertising money. What matters is revenues. Who cares whether a dollar comes from a ticket or an advertisement on ther boards.

If the 30 mil that the Canucks are getting is the benchmark, how many teams besides Edmonton, will fall short?

From Tom Benjamin above...

Hopefully a good TV deal? How long has the NHL been using that ridiculous dream? You don't believe it do you? How stupid do you think these owners are?

Anyhow, the point is that your benchmark always seems to be - what will it take for Edmonton to relocate, fold ... whatever ... So far these benchmarks you keep suggesting are none starters imo because despite Edmonton's struggles there are 15 teams behind them.

Which brings me to...

What question are you talking about?

Also by Tom Benjamin....

When do we decide they are a lost cause?

I contend that a 30 team league, with a good CBA structure, is very viable so the question is a none issue for me.

You argue that this is simply not the case.

If this is not the case, then you tell me the answer to your own question.

Or this not about solutions or the good of the league as you suggested previously?

If those revenues would not go above the NHL average even if they had a good team, the franchise is doomed to mediocrity and Edmonton is not an NHL market. If those revenues would zoom if they had the Edmonton Canucks or Senators, they will have the revenues to afford a winner. In that case, what's the whining about? Tell me you are disadvantaged after you build a good team and you can't afford it.

Again Tom, take your sights off of Edmonton and look at the problem for the league as a whole. Even if you get your way and Edmonton folds, what is your solution for the other 20 + teams in a similar situation?

I will say, in terms of Edmonton, revenue is not an issue. The only revenue problem in Edmonton is the exchange rate on the dollar. And this is an issue that I don't think can be solved by the NHL. How long do the equalization payments make sense for when it relies on 13 money losing teams in the US to provide it?

How high can we expect hockey revenues go? When revenues flatten, so do salaries.

Not if your team model includes "staying a little above average" in terms of salary.

 

[PecaFan]

Canuck TV revenue is now $30 million a year.

You got a cite for that $30 million figure? Because I don't believe it.

The Canucks were getting $4 million from the ABC deal (now less). The CBC deal was even less, I don't know the exact figure. I've heard $60 million per year, $2 million per team. Pay per view is about a quarter million CDN per game, so that's another couple million a year.

So Sportsnet is paying the Canucks $20 million a year?

And on a personal level, I don't believe you're a Canucks fan. You've never posted in the Canucks board *once*.

 

[dawgbone]

Revenue sharing - 60%

Payroll Cap - 50%

Total Revenue Sharing dispersal (30 teams) - $1.32 billion ($44 million/team).

Salary Cap (30 teams) - $35 million

NY Rangers

Current Revenues - $113 mil
Current Expenses - $119.9 mil

Differences - -$6.9 mil

New Revenues - $89.2 mil
New Expenses - $75.9 mil

Difference - $13.3 mil

Dallas Stars

Current Revenues - $108 mil
Current Expenses - $102.4 mil

Difference - $5.6 million

New Revenues - $87.2 mil
New Expenses - $69.4 mil

Difference - $17.8 mil

Toronto Maple Leafs

Current Revenues - $105 mil
Current Expenses - $91.2 mil

Difference - $13.8 mil

New Revenues - $86 mil
New Expenses - $64.2 mil

Difference - $21.8 million

Philadelphia

Current Revenues - $101 mil
Current Expenses - $97.5 mil

Difference - $3.5 mil

New Revenues - $84.4 mil
New Expenses - $70.5 mil

Difference - $13.9 mil

Vancouver Canucks

Current Revenues - $66 mil
Current Expenses - $65.3 mil

Difference - $0.7

New Revenues - $70.4 mil
New Expenses - $62.3 mil

Difference - $8.1 million

Ottawa Senators

Current Revenues - $59 mil
Current Expenses - $61 mil

Difference - -$2

New Revenues - $67.6 mil
New Expenses - $61 mil

Difference - $6.6 million

Edmonton Oilers

Current Revenues - $48 mil
Current Expenses - $48.1 mil

Difference - -$1

New Revenues - $63.2 mil
New Expenses - $48.1 mil

Difference - $15.1 million

Thats just a handful of teams... assuming all of them go to the maximum $35 mil salary cap.

In this case, every single team in he NHL is better off. The players do take a bit of a hit, but if they can improve the product and increase league revenues, the salary for the players goes up.

Heck, if you don't like these numbers, instead of Edmonton making a profit of $15 mil some of it can go into the NHLPA's pension fund, or in escrow, whatever... however you decide to take it off, it doesn't matter.

Now, in order to win, it takes good drafting, player developement and player management.

 

[dawgbone]

You got a cite for that $30 million figure? Because I don't believe it.

The Canucks were getting $4 million from the ABC deal (now less). The CBC deal was even less, I don't know the exact figure. I've heard $60 million per year, $2 million per team. Pay per view is about a quarter million CDN per game, so that's another couple million a year.

So Sportsnet is paying the Canucks $20 million a year?

And on a personal level, I don't believe you're a Canucks fan. You've never posted in the Canucks board *once*.

Yeah... they reported $11 mil in non-gate revenues in 2003...

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

You got a cite for that $30 million figure? Because I don't believe it.

The year before last Burke said they had crossed over $25 million and they had a much better year last year.

The Sportsnet deal was estimated to bring in $10-12 million a year when it was signed but those were based Messier ratings and it is a revenue sharing agreement tthat depends on ratings. Twice as many people are watching the games. They outdrew Toronto. They outdraw a national ESPN broadcast in the States. They can take 40% of the households with some games.

The Canadian TV package - CBC and TSN - is for $80 million a Canadian a year. (Why we share that with the Americans is beyond me. If the news reports are accurate, teams can expect the six Canadian teams to contribute $60 million US and the 24 American teams contribute the same for a total of $120 million.) The NHL also gets a share of the Centre Ice package, but nobody knows how much that is worth. Call the whole works $6 million Canadian.

And pay per view makes one heck of a lot more than $250,000 a game. That's a pretty old claim. It is growing as more and more homes are wired for digital. The only game the Canucks announced for last year was the first one (or 19) and they drew 18,500. I shudder to think what they did with the Leafs on New Year's Eve.

None of that counts the bars. It costs $1500 to broadcast the games and almost every bar in my small town ponies up. How many bars do you think there are in B.C. signed up? Movie theatres in Vancouver also rent the games and the Canucks take half the admission.

The Canucks do $30 million easy these days.

And on a personal level, I don't believe you're a Canucks fan. You've never posted in the Canucks board *once*.

I'm post my Canucks stuff elsewhere. It's okay if I don't think much of the Canuck board here, isn't it?

Tom

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Yeah... they reported $11 mil in non-gate revenues in 2003...

They reported to who? That's a joke.

Tom

 

[PecaFan]

And pay per view makes one heck of a lot more than $250,000 a game. That's a pretty old claim. It is growing as more and more homes are wired for digital. The only game the Canucks announced for last year was the first one (or 19) and they drew 18,500. I shudder to think what they did with the Leafs on New Year's Eve.

The Canucks do $30 million easy these days.

Globe and Mail. Last September. Not old at all:
http://www.friends.ca/News/Friends_News/archives/articles09130301.asp

26,000 subscribers, which corresponds nicely to your 18,500 number. Which is around $250K per game.

You're still around $10 million short. There's no way Sportsnet is paying double from last year or so.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Globe and Mail. Last September. Not old at all:
http://www.friends.ca/News/Friends_News/archives/articles09130301.asp

26,000 subscribers, which corresponds nicely to your 18,500 number. Which is around $250K per game.

You're still around $10 million short. There's no way Sportsnet is paying double from last year or so.

This is a great piece that makes my point. It's unusual to get data this good. This is 2002-2003 when Burke said revenues topped $25 million. The story confirms it.

1) In national revenues the Canucks got $4 million US from the ABC package and $2 million US from the Canadian package, plus an unspecified amount from centre ice.

Call it $9 million Canadian.

2) The article tells us the Canucks averaged 26,000 PPV viewers over 12 games. Forget the bars for this year. That's another $3 million.

3) The article tells us the Canucks made more on a Sportsnet broadcast than pay per view. Do the math and the Canucks got at least $12 million from Sportsnet in 2002-2003.

4) Toss in a million bucks for radio broadcast and you confirm Brian Burke's $25 million figure for that year.

In 2003-04, Sportsnet viewership went from 280,000 a game to 330,000 a game. They had 17 pay per view games instead of 12. They increased the cost of the pay per view packages and they surely had another big leap in subscribers. It probably did not double again, but it went up. They cracked down on bar piracy selling hundreds if not thousands of packages to bars at $1599 for the season. They also sold PPV hockey to several movie theatres for the first time.

And you don't think broadcast revenues hit $30 million?

Tom

 

[quat]

Then you aren't reading carefully enough. Why on earth would anyone think players deserve more? No one has ever tried to suggest the players are underpaid. All anyone has said is that the owners voluntarily signed every single contract and they haven't produced any evidence to support any of their claims.

Your opinion has nothing whatsoever to do with the facts on the ground. Your opinion is grounded in the belief that the Oilers will not continue to exist unless there is a fundamental change in the system. Nothing will change your mind as long as you believe that. Unfortunately, it is a mug's game.

If the Oilers are telling the truth and they truly have been priced out of the NHL, there is no answer in a CBA. The players won't take a pay cut to save the team, and relocation would happen even if they did. Teams hardly ever fold and they relocate to go for a better deal no matter what the CBA says. The players would be crazy to take less forever to save marginal teams. They will collectively make more if the teams fold.

If the Oilers are telling the truth, folding the team is clearly the best thing for the league, the other owners, the players and the fans in every other city. If they can't survive under a system that had Ottawa the odds on favourite at the start of the year and Tampa beating Calgary at the end of the year, they are doomed. Time to face facts.

If the Oilers are not telling the truth - my view - then they would play indefinitely under the old system. I am skeptical because I have been hearing this song from teams for more than 40 years. I stopped believing them a long time ago. I can't believe them without feeling like a chump. I can't believe in a "even playing field, everybody has a chance, everybody keeps all their players, everybody survives in place, lower ticket prices" Fantasy Island being peddled.

It never occurs to you that you might be being taken?

Tom

Have you heard of yaught races? 18' races? They are extremely popular in some sailing circles. They are exciting because every boat in the race is the same, but the people who sail them are of course all different. Oddly enough, some of these sailers tend to dominate for stretches of time... up to decades even. You see it depends on their ability to sail the same boat as everyone else in the field. They aren't sailing larger of faster boats to beat their opponents, they are just performing better under the same conditions. And yet everyone is excited by the races because the sailing is great, and eventually a better sailor comes along and rises to the top.

Tennis is like that too, as are a whole slew of other sports.

Your last comments about what you can't believe are silly, since no one is whining about needing those things in the manner you suggest. Once again you are making up nonsense and then acting as though you alone are smart enough to understand how it is so.

Having salary linked to revenue will not guarantee crappy teams attendance, nor will it keep teams in cities where they don't have enough of a fan base to support a franchise. It will make the league more competitive for well coached teams with good drafting and smart trading... as it should.

 

[QQQ]

Yacht racing?

"The Ideal 18 has strict one-design racing rules which are described below.
Last update: May 14, 2002

1. Objectives of the Class
1.1 The IDEAL 18 is a one-design sailing class created to fulfill the needs of recreational sailors, such as fun one-design racing and performance daysailing. These rules are intended to preserve important design characteristics; identical performance among boats, low cost of ownership, ease and simplicity of handling.
1.2 Except where specific variations are permitted within these rules, class boats shall be alike in hull, deck, keel, rudder, spars, weight, weight distribution, sailplan and racing equipment.

1.3 All boats shall comply with official building plans, building specifications and the class rules. No alterations or modifications to factory-installed equipment are permitted unless explicitly stated in these rules."

I'm not sure I follow the analogy to yacht racing so I looked up the boats reqs. So since the rinks are the same size and they all have boards, ice and goalie nets are they not on equal footing and it is the players that are the main variable determining a win?

Tennis players have different raquets so that wouldn't apply.

 

[QQQ]

Before I get totally side tracked with yachting.

But it is fun being rediculously side tracked and so I'll continue.

Since team owners are only interested in the collective health of the NHL. In order that each team be able to survive what they might want to consider is to incorporate. I'm not well versed in incorporation terminology so cut me some slack.
The corporation would be the NHL Inc. Each owner would give up their team and accept shares in lieu based on valuations. Anaheim since it values the organization as O on it's books would be the team you could start with and alot them 1 share. I'm sure Levitt could come up with a fair valuation for shares. Then instead of working against each other the owner's would have incentive to work together. They could offer it on the open market and we could all buy shares through our ethical pension funds.

The scope of this idea is a bit bigger than I have energy to think thru right now but I think it may have merit :lol

Continuing along the yacht guy's idea to keep things as equal as possible- you could only have two players over 6'4. Every team would have to have a player under 5'8". One would have to be a D in either category. 1/3 of players must be under the age of 25, the next third 25-31 and the balance 32 +. Preference would be given to a player able to speak another language besides english. Bonus points for... You get my point? Nuts No response required.

 

[thinkwild]

Fact: The ONLY thing Bettman could have done to prevent the player salaries from getting out of wack was to have a cap in 1994.

NOT Fact. Only a cap will save us? Mob cliche.

The Ideal 18 has strict one-design racing rules which are described below.
Last update: May 14, 2002

In the Americas Cup Yacht racing, from what I remember there was a very complex formula using the square root of the mast size and the reciprocal of the tonnage over the total displacement, or some such incomprehensible formla that defined nothing. Their designs are hidden trade serets, and equality of spending is far from the goal

Your idea of NHL inc, is like Major league soccer. All players are contracted to the league. The league negotiates all salaries centrally. This was one of the owners 6 proposed concepts. Not a cap of course.

Its hard to imagine 30 barons of free enterprise, masters of their empires, giving that up to become vice presidents in NHL inc. Owners are not interested in the collective health of the NHL. They are interested in their own bottom lines and they compete with bloodlust against each other for it.

Just because an owner goes bankrupt, doesnt mean the team loses. Just the owner does like in Ottawa. The owner went bankrupt- bad for him. But a new owner gets a good deal, good for us. I dont think these guys care if they send each other into bankruptcy. Its a game for them. They dont even care that they were losing $1.8bil on paper over the last decade.

 

[TBLightningFan]

Most of this is going way to far. I agree let the best teams be the best! But at the same time each franchise should have the same fair blank slate in which to construct the team. This is the purpose of a cap or luxury tax. NY, Detroit, or Toronto should not have a 20 ft chalkboard while new teams have to use a Post-It. Thats not the way to build a fan base and promote the sport. Football was big before the cap but look what it has done since then... the sport has be propelled to the top. Theres no problems with the bad team because they have the same room to build as the top dogs. Every team has the potential to be number 1 within a year or two.

Why do people have problems with owners making money?? they invested their millions and rightfully expect to make a profit based on their gamble. I don't invest my money unless I am to make it. But just as with anything the owners have the risk of losing money too. I understand there are bigger markets... but that surplus should go to the owners pocket and facilities instead. Not to make salaries so high the rest of the league suffers.

Many argue that the players are the talent and they should see most of the cash. WHY? Lockheed Martin or Grumman build the most advanced fighters in the world. But I guarantee that the owners of the company are the ones making out the dough.... not the engineeers. Or even Microsoft... the programmers created the most dominant OS in the world that was marketed effectively by the marketers. But Gates is the one who benefits most... and I feel it is rightly so. Gates for example took his big risks and stuck his neck out in the beginning. Without that there is no place for the programmers, marketers, sales, engineers to play.

While in some respects I feel for the players... but really who is the NHLPA really working in the best interest for? Until the NHLPA conducts itself in a manner that looks out for all players top to bottom... I cannot side with them. The only interest the NHLPA seems to care about is the star players. The ones on the bottom matter just as much. You may not hear much about them but they get the job done along with the stars. Just ask The TB Bucs or the Miami Dolphins how much those lowly Offensive Lineman matter right now!!!

It comes down to what I think is the best for the League. I side with the owners because of their desire of a cap and luxury tax. It has done wonders for the NFL and NBA and in the end will make for good salaries no matter where they play.

Just ask yourself this one thing: Why do some teams of the nations #4 sport have a salaries that exceed the cap for the nations most popular and profitable sport whos championship game is one of the WORLDS most watched events?