ok .. a positive about a cap .. maybe ?

[Biggest Canuck Fan]

it depends on other factors as well. such as (but not limited to) growth and market share, as well as amalgamating or expanding of operations.

but regardless, 46% even as gross profit before overheads is very agressive and not many industries target more than 25 - 30 % left after direct costs.

dr

I think the playoffs are a something the players deserve a bigger share of for certain.

I mean how can you justify paying them pennies really when the games bring in a million a game, at least for the Canucks?

All in all the Owners do deserve a bigger peice of the pie than they are getting. They just need to give in the playoffs to get in the regular season.

Good post DR!

 

[thedjpd]

well, the revenue figures cited by the league i assume include playoff revenue. if this is the case, then the player no longer are playing the playoffs for free.

ok, tell me why the players cant ask for this in return for linkage.

1 - Revenue Certainty. The players and owners agree what is todays revenue's and set a date to count those same revenue's again.

If the the league hasnt grown in revenue by X %, the owners will be charged a penalty. This instantly cures the trust issue, it behooves the owners to declare at least enough of their revenue to show the growth.

2 - Full salary for this year. Hey, let the owners buy their way into the hard cap. Whats the difference, they were prepared to scorch all revenue and future revenue's to get the hard cap anyway.

Ok ...

dr

54% is not a hard number. If the league grows, the owners will make more money. If the owners make more money, the 54% of the now larger number means more cash, so the players make more money. It's mutual benefit.

The cap isn't set at 40 million. It's set at 54% of revenues, which measn the more revenues you get, the more money EVERYBODY makes. That gives incentive both to the owners and the players.

 

[thinkwild]

If Illitch buys his team for $8mil and now sells it for $250mil, why isnt that hockey related revenue?

If in the decade that his investment went up by $200mil, he also made $100mil in operational profits during 7 good years, and lost $60mil in 3 others, would you look at the last 3 years of losses he incurred and conclude that he needs a salary cap?

IF mario flips his franchise for a capital gain of $100mil during which team he absorbed opertaion losses of $25mil, has he lost money and is in need of a cap to survive?

 

[thinkwild]

If owners "deserve" 54% of revenues when revenues are $2,3 billion, shouldnt they "deserve" only say 50% if revenues were to increase to $3.3Bil? Why do they "deserve" a larger share than a free market would dictate their choices would lead them to?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

54% is not a hard number. If the league grows, the owners will make more money. If the owners make more money, the 54% of the now larger number means more cash, so the players make more money. It's mutual benefit.

The cap isn't set at 40 million. It's set at 54% of revenues, which measn the more revenues you get, the more money EVERYBODY makes. That gives incentive both to the owners and the players.

where did i say otherwise ?

what you missed was that the players are putting a demand on the owners to increase the revenue in the next "Y years".

a guarantee, just like the owners asked the players to do for their model. which by the way, they feel they have done.

"Roenick said he still can't believe the NHL owners didn't accept the players' last offer.

He confirmed the association offered a deal that would give the owners their "cost certainty."

'GUARANTEED' OFFER

"We guaranteed it. If it did not do what we said it would do and put a drag down on salaries after three years, we would go to their system and accept a salary cap," said Roenick. "Something that's equal for both sides. "
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/OttawaSun/Sports/2005/01/29/913786-sun.html "

DR

 

[me2]

ok ... how come its always common folklore that the players dont get paid for the playoffs then ?

dr

The players are paid in advance, its factored into the pay already.

 

[txomisc]

well, i dont think its unreasonable for the players to count on the owners increasing revenue, since they want to tie their pay to it. do you not expect your pay to increase year over year ?

secondly, the owners asked the players to "guarantee" their offer, do you remember that ? this is just turnaround. its the players asking the owners to guarantee their deal will work out for the players.

i say the owners trading revenue certainty for cost certainty is a reasonable demand by the players.

dr

It is certainly not wrong to ask the owners to attempt to increases revenue. What is wrong is punishing them for failing.

 

[ladybugblue]

if you make and sell widgets a good 70% of your expendetures would go into the production of them. the players are the primary component of the production of the NHL product.
dr

Actually I disagree. I used to work at a Pharmacy and as our "perk" we got products at cost price (i.e., the price it costs the pharmacy to purchase it) and it was always marked up at least 100%. Now I don't think this would even be the cost of manufacturing the product as the company (making the product) would want a part of the profit so for example a product that was $10 that is sold in the store probably costs about $3-4 at the maximum to manufacture (maybe even less). As another example you look how movies are made and say movie that costs $100 million to make and the actors involved make 25% of the costs or $25 million and the movie goes on to make $300 million. Some actors have in the their contract an additional percentage of the revenues if the movies is profitable. You don't go and see actors complaining that they are part of the product and they deserve a certain percent of the revenues (even if they are $50 million). In any other business the costs for the product are ususally even less than the 54% but not in sports why is this? It makes no logical sense but I guess all involved no longer makes sense to me...

 

[Biggest Canuck Fan]

"Roenick said he still can't believe the NHL owners didn't accept the players' last offer.

He confirmed the association offered a deal that would give the owners their "cost certainty."
DR

I think the the problem I would have with this is... what NHL player is involved in the day to day operations of running an NHL francise?

I know the Owners are, and their executives. I know the NHL is as a part of being the francisee to the francise.

So the Players may have offered what appeared to them to be some god send of an offer... but to the owners who have been running these francises longer than some players have been in the league, it was a slap in the face to resolve their issue.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

It is certainly not wrong to ask the owners to attempt to increases revenue. What is wrong is punishing them for failing.

no it isnt. the owners want the players to tie their salary to revenue. the players are in return demanding the owners increase revenue.

quid pro quo.

dr

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I think the the problem I would have with this is... what NHL player is involved in the day to day operations of running an NHL francise?

I know the Owners are, and their executives. I know the NHL is as a part of being the francisee to the francise.

So the Players may have offered what appeared to them to be some god send of an offer... but to the owners who have been running these francises longer than some players have been in the league, it was a slap in the face to resolve their issue.

not sure i follow your logic ... do you not recall Bettman asking the players to guarantee their model would work and if they did that the NHL would bargain on the PA model ?
dr

 

[Biggest Canuck Fan]

not sure i follow your logic ... do you not recall Bettman asking the players to guarantee their model would work and if they did that the NHL would bargain on the PA model ?
dr

The logic is simple. Would you ask a regular doctor or a specialist if you found a tumor in your back? Specialist of course. The doctor has some knowledge, but isnot an expert.

The Players have some knowledge, but the Owners are the experts. I will trust, and I use that term loosely, the owners on this one.