Fast forward to January 2006 and todays NHL offer will seem generous

[vanlady]

What did Bob say?

He was just as shocked as I was, because the owners have been going on about this 300 million warchest. By the sounds of it it could be dried up.

The long and short of the discussion was this. Many of the owners have huge lines of credit and mortgages on arenas. The bank will let them go for 6 months without paying, after that, well what happens when you don't pay your mortgage for 6 months. Apparently this applies to more than one club.

Al Morganti from Philidelphia also basically said the same thing on Bob's show the day before.

 

[thedjpd]

Find it amazing that the economic PhDs on this thread are absolutely, positively certain that the players "MUST!" accept the owner's offer "RIGHT NOW!"...or else they are "DOOMED!"

These same folks apparently double as psychics, too. As in: laying out the scenario that will unfold over the next 6, 12, 24 months.

Very instructive for this reader and I'm sure we are all grateful for this insight, these "facts". Who needs to follow the negotiations? We already know who is "WRONG!" and how it will turn out, thanks to these highly-confident clairvoyants.

Of course, one saw the same declarations back in September-December, with predictions that the players would cave in/be doomed by January. But never mind....

Most fascinating is that "THE IDIOT!" Bob Goodenow and the "GREEDY!" union members whom he represents have not dialed into the sage advice of HF's self-assured economic geniuses/fortune tellers.

I mean, it's sooooo plain for all to see, isn't it?

Just like the other economic PhDs who claim owners that somehow become billionaires are total idiots and have no idea what they're doing when it comes to business.

 

[quat]

Folding teams, thanks to the lockout is going to happen, get over it. The business editor for espn.com has already said that there are small market teams that have been notified by there banks that when the lockout is over they will not refinance them, where are they going to get the capital to start up again. Don't say from there other businesses, that is why McNall and Rigas are in jail, the IRS very much frowns on it.

I thought you said the Owners were lieing about losses, and that franchises were worth and ever increasing amount... yet here you are posting the complete opposite. As I said before, doesn't this more than prove that the owners are infact losing so much that teams will be folded? If what you posted turns out to be true, it's even worse that the players are willing to take such a hard stance.

Perhaps the league has discussed buying out a couple of teams? This seems kind of unlikely... but you never know I guess.

 

[thinkwild]

You know, beyond the one or two idiots, there exists problems that simply aren't addressed by these offers. Team revenue disparity, the fact that the NHL is a competitive league and the fact that owners aren't allowed to collude to keep salaries low. A wealthy team has every right to spend what is in their budget. The fact they will always have twice as much money to spend gives them a huge advantage, and one which they are foolish not to use. Hey, the more they win the happier the fans the more money coming in. Calling all big spending teams idiots is far too simple.

Im not calling big spending teams idiots though. Im saying their spending only gives them an advantage in signing ufas for creating a marketing buzz that helps ticket sales, but that doesnt hinder teams like Ottawa from building their niched way. The big markets signing ufas and the small markets building drafting and trading have just as tough a time developing an elite team.

Arbitration, especially if both sides can initiate it, almost is an acceptable collusion. They are colluding to ensure that all RFAs are paid similarly. And revenue disparity isnt adressed with caps

The problems of the one or two idiots are easily solved. Outlier contracts can be reverse arbitrated, or perhaps tagged as ineligible for arbitration if appealed, etc. Surely there is way to handle these exceptions within the arbitration rules

 

[quat]

Im not calling big spending teams idiots though. Im saying their spending only gives them an advantage in signing ufas for creating a marketing buzz that helps ticket sales, but that doesnt hinder teams like Ottawa from building their niched way. The big markets signing ufas and the small markets building drafting and trading have just as tough a time developing an elite team.

Arbitration, especially if both sides can initiate it, almost is an acceptable collusion. They are colluding to ensure that all RFAs are paid similarly. And revenue disparity isnt adressed with caps

The problems of the one or two idiots are easily solved. Outlier contracts can be reverse arbitrated, or perhaps tagged as ineligible for arbitration if appealed, etc. Surely there is way to handle these exceptions within the arbitration rules

I imagine arbitration available to both sides would be helpfull... though to be honest I haven't the imagination at this point to see it more than in it's most basic manner. The Sens were saved by the hand of God. Money bag owners don't often drop into towns to buy up the teams and save the day... I wouldn't count on that as being the norm.

One problem i have with all this arbitration, is it would take forever to get anything done. EVery good year players want more, every bad year the teams are trying to take back. Sounds too confrontational to build solid team unity. But again... I could be convinced by others who can articulate the reason why.

 

[HckyFght*]

It's not like the players arn't going to be making millions of dollars if there is linkage between saleries and revenue. If the owners want that they should get that no question asked.

And remember, 54% of 2 billion is an awesome figure, but consider the possibility that they get it right for a change and the league flourishes, then 54% of, say 5 billion would include pay raises all around. Oh, excuse me, that would mean that the players would have to show up, play with some heart, and actually live up to their part of the bargain. No wonder they are being stubborn!
-HckyFght!

 

[Cully9]

Folding teams, thanks to the lockout is going to happen, get over it. The business editor for espn.com has already said that there are small market teams that have been notified by there banks that when the lockout is over they will not refinance them, where are they going to get the capital to start up again. Don't say from there other businesses, that is why McNall and Rigas are in jail, the IRS very much frowns on it.

I listened to this interview. Darren Rovell said "some" banks weren't going to finance NHL teams, but also made the distinction that he wasn't saying that the teams couldn't get financing at other banks.

If teams are in such danger of folding, would it not be in the best interests of the PA to act quickly and save 50 or 100 jobs of its dues-paying membership?

 

[vanlady]

I listened to this interview. Darren Rovell said "some" banks weren't going to finance NHL teams, but also made the distinction that he wasn't saying that the teams couldn't get financing at other banks.

If teams are in such danger of folding, would it not be in the best interests of the PA to act quickly and save 50 or 100 jobs of its dues-paying membership?

The amount of banks that finance pro sports is very small, so if they are being cut off by one the likelyhood of getting financing from another is very small.

Does the PA even know that these teams have been warned by there banks? This was a big surprise to me when he made these comments simply because I thought the owners had a 300 million lockout fund, are the players just as surprised?

 

[YellHockey*]

I thought you said the Owners were lieing about losses, and that franchises were worth and ever increasing amount... yet here you are posting the complete opposite. As I said before, doesn't this more than prove that the owners are infact losing so much that teams will be folded?

No. It proves that the owners are lying about how "they lose less money by not playing" and their $300M warchest.

They could go under because they are not playing. The CBA has no relevance on those teams' financial woes.

 

[eye]

This thread seems old already but appropriate under the circumstances.

 

[Wolfpack]

I just can't grasp how the players can be so willing to walk away from what - for many of them - will equal one quarter of their career earnings! That would be equivalent to an everyday Joe like me taking 8 years off from my job and not working at all - or moving to Europe for 8 years and doing a similar job for 1/10th the wage.

I'm not sure that these players really know what they are losing here.

I also find it interesting that I've not heard much from the player agents lately. They played a big part in twisting the last CBA to have it serve their own purposes. I would think that whatever CBA is decided upon, the agents will find a way to make their players dumptruck loads of cash anyway.

 

[futurcorerock]

This thread seems old already but appropriate under the circumstances.

yeah, because you wrote it.