I cant believe what I just heard Healy say (I think)

[Sammy*]

I believe I just heard him say, on the issue of the supposed aspect of the owners offer that they would share profits on a 50/50 split on profits over 115 M, that this was pointless proposal cause the owners had not made a profit in 10 years & he couldnrt see them making a profit over the next 4.
And no, he didnt say in respect of anything on this issue about the owners hiding profits/revenues .
Now, can someone explain to me if the NHLPA's own shill readily says the owners are not making any $$$ and will not in the near future , & thats why pan offer of profit sharing is hollow, exactly why is the NHLPA battling like bandits in an industry that he readily acknowledges doesnt make money.
Now, I may have misheard Healy & if I did I am sure someone will clarify, but I dont think so.

Click to read more...

 

[hockeyfan125]

Here is what I hear when Healy talks:

Blah, blah, blah the players will not accept this, blah blah.

He is a ****ing moron who knows jack all and is just a stupid puppet in this game.

 

[OilerFan4Life]

Healy is the biggest a-hole in Canada right now. That includes everyones favorite Satelite Hotstove guest Al Strachan.

 

[WHARF1940]

His take on the proposed new arbitration set up is so far-fetched, it is almost like he is LOOKING for a reason to be pessimistic about everything. I can't watch him anymore!!!

 

[OilerFan4Life]

His take on the proposed new arbitration set up is so far-fetched, it is almost like he is LOOKING for a reason to be pessimistic about everything. I can't watch him anymore!!!

ofcourse...the dudes getting paid to act like an idiot. No one can be that dumb

 

[me2]

I believe I just heard him say, on the issue of the supposed aspect of the owners offer that they would share profits on a 50/50 split on profits over 115 M, that this was pointless proposal cause the owners had not made a profit in 10 years & he couldnrt see them making a profit over the next 4.
And no, he didnt say in respect of anything on this issue about the owners hiding profits/revenues .
Now, can someone explain to me if the NHLPA's own shill readily says the owners are not making any $$$ and will not in the near future , & thats why pan offer of profit sharing is hollow, exactly why is the NHLPA battling like bandits in an industry that he readily acknowledges doesnt make money.
Now, I may have misheard Healy & if I did I am sure someone will clarify, but I dont think so.

But its true. Why do you think the owners offered it. The teams are making a loss somewhere between $200m and $400m (including interest etc). Pick the middle of that and add $115m. The NHL has to make a turn around of about $400-450m before they start paying players a 50-50 share of the profit.

Its a long term plan, the players won't see much advantage for quite a few years. It just needs them to look at the longer term. The more they do to sell the NHL and make it profitable, the more money they get.

Theoretically though the players could get as high as 77.5% of the revenues if the NHL had no runnings costs. Realistically, 60% if the NHL can turn it around and make a good profit (55% + 50 share excess profit could get to 60%).

 

[GKJ]

I believe I just heard him say, on the issue of the supposed aspect of the owners offer that they would share profits on a 50/50 split on profits over 115 M, that this was pointless proposal cause the owners had not made a profit in 10 years & he couldnrt see them making a profit over the next 4.
And no, he didnt say in respect of anything on this issue about the owners hiding profits/revenues .
Now, can someone explain to me if the NHLPA's own shill readily says the owners are not making any $$$ and will not in the near future , & thats why pan offer of profit sharing is hollow, exactly why is the NHLPA battling like bandits in an industry that he readily acknowledges doesnt make money.
Now, I may have misheard Healy & if I did I am sure someone will clarify, but I dont think so.

You keep watching though, that's what counts. He wasn't talking out of his ass you wouldn't be watching to see what he's saying next.

 

[SENSfreak_03]

i think he does bring a good point in that. the league hasnt had a profit in 10 years. the way there alienating the fans now, revenues are likely to go down, how can they make a profit will less revenue? now that could change down the road, but i dont see the league turning it around enough to make a massive 115 million dollar profit.

it may be a long term gain, but when, who knows?

 

[jcab2000]

i think he does bring a good point in that. the league hasnt had a profit in 10 years. the way there alienating the fans now, revenues are likely to go down, how can they make a profit will less revenue? now that could change down the road, but i dont see the league turning it around enough to make a massive 115 million dollar profit.

it may be a long term gain, but when, who knows?

There is no logic going on here. If there is no profit in 10 years, it's not a stretch to say that there needs to be a major change to the economic system. The major sticking point the players have with the cap is that it limits what the players can make, but it doesn't limit what the teams can make. When you add profit sharing to a cap, both sides win! The teams make money and the players make money. If teams continue to lose money, there will be further problems such as fewer teams and fewer NHL jobs and even lower salaries.

An economic system based on owners being willing to lose a lot of money is absurd. There is no point that can be made that makes any sense whatsoever.

 

[Sammy*]

You keep watching though, that's what counts. He wasn't talking out of his ass you wouldn't be watching to see what he's saying next.

True enough, but when you actually hear a pro-nhlpa guy acknowledge that the owners havnt made a profit in 10 years,& wont in the next 4 even under a new CBA, you really have to wonder if the NHLPA has any sense of equity/fairness at all. Like, do the members actually think that its "fair" that the owners dont make any profit now or in the future, & how in gods name is any system sustainable where the owners wont make a profit.
Maybe the NHLPA proposal was actually going to have the owners cash in big time but the owners were just too thick to figure it out.

 

[mudcrutch79]

I think that the point Healy was actually making was that this is a false light, or whatever the expression is. I doubt he believes that the owners have collectively lost money, or that if they have, it's been due to anything other than stupid business practices, guys with business plans predicated on using a hockey team to get cheap assets elsewhere, and hobby owners.

The point he's making is that this will allow the owners to continue doing what they do, and not have to face the consequences of bad decisions.

 

[jcab2000]

I think that the point Healy was actually making was that this is a false light, or whatever the expression is. I doubt he believes that the owners have collectively lost money, or that if they have, it's been due to anything other than stupid business practices, guys with business plans predicated on using a hockey team to get cheap assets elsewhere, and hobby owners.

The point he's making is that this will allow the owners to continue doing what they do, and not have to face the consequences of bad decisions.

Well don't the players benefit by owners who continue to pay too much for players?

 

[Sammy*]

I think that the point Healy was actually making was that this is a false light, or whatever the expression is. I doubt he believes that the owners have collectively lost money, or that if they have, it's been due to anything other than stupid business practices, guys with business plans predicated on using a hockey team to get cheap assets elsewhere, and hobby owners.

The point he's making is that this will allow the owners to continue doing what they do, and not have to face the consequences of bad decisions.

Oh, I get it, he actually is looking after the owners best interests & doesnt want them to pay too much for a player(s).

 

[waffledave]

115 million is only 4 million per team. I'm pretty sure that with the new system, teams will be able to at least make 4 million in profit. Maybe not right away but with time.

It really, truly says alot when the team cannot make more in profit than what a single first line player (and sometimes even 3rd line) makes in salary.

 

[Mess]

I believe I just heard him say, on the issue of the supposed aspect of the owners offer that they would share profits on a 50/50 split on profits over 115 M, that this was pointless proposal cause the owners had not made a profit in 10 years & he couldnrt see them making a profit over the next 4.
And no, he didnt say in respect of anything on this issue about the owners hiding profits/revenues .
Now, can someone explain to me if the NHLPA's own shill readily says the owners are not making any $$$ and will not in the near future , & thats why pan offer of profit sharing is hollow, exactly why is the NHLPA battling like bandits in an industry that he readily acknowledges doesnt make money.
Now, I may have misheard Healy & if I did I am sure someone will clarify, but I dont think so.

NO that is exactly what he said and this is what he meant ....imo

The fact that everyone knows that a extended lockout and strike drives fans away and it takes years to get them back that will only cause even lower expected Revenue than previous ..

In Baseball it took 10 years till attendance reached pre strike numbers ..

Revenue can be either profit or loss ..

Sounds more like instead of sharing profits .. The NHL is more concerned in sharing the losses

... and what better way then to lock players salaries into poor expansion decisions in non hockey markets by Bettman for cost certainty for the owners ..

Owners pay the players ...Owners suffer losses ..Players pay owners

Oh the irony

24 NHL teams showed losses last season soon to be covered by Players in cost Certainty CBA = Sucker born every minute ....

 

[mudcrutch79]

115 million is only 4 million per team. I'm pretty sure that with the new system, teams will be able to at least make 4 million in profit. Maybe not right away but with time.

It really, truly says alot when the team cannot make more in profit than what a single first line player (and sometimes even 3rd line) makes in salary.

How do you know this?

 

[mudcrutch79]

Well don't the players benefit by owners who continue to pay too much for players?

Define too much.

 

[waffledave]

How do you know this?

Know what?

 

[mudcrutch79]

Know what?

How do you a) know that a team can't make as much in profits as a 3d line player, and b) how is it even relevant? If the team is part of a $750 MM real estate scheme, what does the owner care if he loses $10 MM on players?

 

[waffledave]

How do you a) know that a team can't make as much in profits as a 3d line player, and b) how is it even relevant? If the team is part of a $750 MM real estate scheme, what does the owner care if he loses $10 MM on players?

I don't think you understood what I said.

I was commenting on the fact that to reach the 115 million in profits, each need only needs to make 4 million in profit.

I then went on to say that if a team can't even do that, then they'd really be in trouble. I then commented on the fact that 4 million is what most first liners (and even some 3rd liners) make, and that it goes to show you the sad state of the team's finances if a single player is making more than the team is making in profit.

As for the rest of your post, I don't know what you're trying to say. Sorry.

 

[me2]

NO that is exactly what he said and this is what he meant ....imo

The fact that everyone knows that a extended lockout and strike drives fans away and it takes years to get them back that will only cause even lower expected Revenue than previous ..

In Baseball it took 10 years till attendance reached pre strike numbers ..

Revenue can be either profit or loss ..

Sounds more like instead of sharing profits .. The NHL is more concerned in sharing the losses

... and what better way then to lock players salaries into poor expansion decisions in non hockey markets by Bettman for cost certainty for the owners ..

Owners pay the players ...Owners suffer losses ..Players pay owners

Oh the irony

24 NHL teams showed losses last season soon to be covered by Players in cost Certainty CBA = Sucker born every minute ....

Revenue is neither profit or loss, it is simply revenue.

The players are being promised 55% of the revenue. They get and keep that 55% whether or not the teams make a profit or a loss.

If the teams make enough profit the players get 55% of revenues + some other percentage of revenues (the percentage of which depends of amount of expenses).

If the teams make a loss the players get 55% of revenues + 0% of the loss (percentage of which depends of amount of expenses).

Teams do well financially and the players get a bonus. The teams do badly and the players are insulated from any losses. The players can win, the players can break even, the players can't lose.

 

[leaflover]

The players can win, the players can break even, the players can't lose.

Sounds great for the players but in reality.............

Unless you consider that deal better than the previous CBA then the players take their losses the second the pen hits the signature line on a salary cap CBA.

 

[Mess]

Revenue is neither profit or loss, it is simply revenue.

The players are being promised 55% of the revenue. They get and keep that 55% whether or not the teams make a profit or a loss.

If the teams make enough profit the players get 55% of revenues + some other percentage of revenues (the percentage of which depends of amount of expenses).

If the teams make a loss the players get 55% of revenues + 0% of the loss (percentage of which depends of amount of expenses).

Teams do well financially and the players get a bonus. The teams do badly and the players are insulated from any losses. The players can win, the players can break even, the players can't lose.

Not even close by my opinon

Define Revenue .. because the players would like to know and will never tie to anything until that is defined ..

Define Cost Certainty because that is what the Owners want and you say that has nothing to do with Expenses .. That by defintition alone has nothing to do with Revenue ..

In Simple terms the teams want to know before the season begins what their costs are going to be (a large portion of which is player Salaries) ..Once they know it costs the team can now determine what to charge per ticket and parking etc so that Revenue generated that at the end of the year they can make a profitable business .. Revenue - Expenses = Profit or (Loss) ..


Revenue = Profit or loss from Sales ..

If you buy something 10 bucks and sell it for 5 bucks .. Revenue = ???

Players Can't Lose ???? Then why do owners need cost certainty if is has no bearing on on how much money and team makes or loses ..

0 % of expenses to players ??? Owners clain that 75 % of expenses = player Salaries .. They make up most of the cost to the owners .. They want cost certainty ???

Revenue is a floating scale and different for each team .. a Hard Cap defines a ceiing on spending of player salaries ..Salaries coming down ..

Why would the players need to give a 24 % rollback in Salaries you think this is all about getting 55 % of Gate Receipts, Parking , Concessions REVENUE etc ..

Players also have no control or say as to how a team generates Revenue ..and then of that they get 55% ... Okay ..

Bottom line : Players get 55 % of Fans Money and Owners get 45 %..

 

[quat]

Not even close by my opinon

Define Revenue .. because the players would like to know and will never tie to anything until that is defined ..

Uh ... actually that is exactly what the players do not want and have stated so on many occassions. They refuse to sit down and discuss anything that evens smells like linkage. So many PA supporters keep making this point, even the talking heads say the NHL should have hired a guy that the PA would agree to when checking the books... conviently forgetting that the PA refused to agree to that course of action, and the NHL was left with no choice but to hire a guy with an almost flawless record. A guy who said he would meet with the PA anytime to discuss his findings. The PA dismissed him as a lacky, invented a bunch of hidden revenue and the shouted the NHL won't negotiate.

How exactly would anyone go about negotiating with people like this? Really? I certainly would like to hear a reasonable response.

PA supporters have gone on and on (and rightfully so), about how strong the "union" is, but complain bitterly when the NHL resorts to similar kinds of tactics.

 

[Cully9]

Define Revenue .. because the players would like to know and will never tie to anything until that is defined ..

Well, there are already two major professional sports leagues that seem to manage defining their revenues. Coincidentally enough, both sports have salary caps.

Fact is, players don't want to limit their access to just hockey-related revenue. If they can find an owner who, for example (and only as an example), might be willing to dig into pizza profits in order to add an extra player or two, then the PA is all for it -- never mind that it is impossible for the league to operate in that manner unless every team is owned by a billionaire who doesn't care about losing money.