me2 said:
Salaries have moved a long way since then. They will be putting teams in markets that will struggle to match the revenue of revenue weak teams like Carolina & Florida. And the new league will be paying UFA prices in a bidding war. It is much harder for a startup league to come in a steal away stars as UFAs.
Thats what the old NHL thought too. Didn't work that way. While the NHL eventually won out, as Conway points out, there were casualties. Say Bain DID start a rival league. We know they are willing to spend $3.5 billion up front for a professional hockey league, how much would they be willing to spend to start up a league? Say a 10 team league, with a $55 million salary cap? Much better than the NHL's $35 million cap (not to mention the rookie and individual salary caps).
me2 said:
Hint: the authors tone gives it way.
I guess we all see what we want to see.
me2 said:
They can't make a hostile take over of the NHL. They might be able to buy a team or two, I'm sure Nashville's owner wouldn't say no to $200m, but they can't force the owners to sell. These aren't publically list companies.
No, they aren't. But if Bain creates an atmosphere that forces NHL owners to sell... Say they buy out 10 NHL teams, and convince Toronto and New York to join them (not sell to them, but become partners with Bain). The NHL would be down 12 teams, including its two biggest revenue makers. Plus, they wouldn't have any arenas to play in, in Toronto and New York. Ruinous, for sure. How long will they hold out then, as Bain keeps waving that $3.5 billion stick in front of them? Why would they WANT to hold out? Most NHL owners are capitalists first, and fans second (if they are fans at all). If the situation isn't condusive to them making money, they'll bail.
They may not want to sell NOW, but if Bain takes over 1/3 of the league, the remaining owners may see the writing on the wall.
me2 said:
They could start a new league, but I doubt it. Why would they pour $1b+ into a loss making league that will probably fold. There are much smarter, safer ways to make money.
NHL owners have been doing it for 10 years now, apparently.
If Bain were to start a new league, I doubt they would be doing it for long term purposes. They would be doing it to force the NHL to sell to them (continuing with the hostile takeover theme). For example, with Toronto and New York on board, and say 8 other cities, they could probably bring in about $600 - $700 million in revenues. If Pittsburgh, with their lousy arena, lousy arena deal, lousy attendance, and lousy team, can bring in $52 million, I'm pretty sure Winnipeg could bring in $50 million as well. So the new league would put in a salary cap at say, $50-55 million, and start poaching players from the $35 million cap NHL. Will the new league make money in its first year, or first few years? No, of course not. But then again, neither do many other startup companies. $3.5 billion, up front. Do you think Bain expects to make that back in the first year? Of course not. They have a long term plan that would see them EVENTUALLY recuperating not only that initial $3.5 billion, but whatever losses they incur in the short term until they become profitable. In other words, they probably think it will take them 5-10 years to recoup the first $3.5 billion, and THEN start making money.In a new league, they could lose $500 million a year, and it would still take them 7 years to reach the money they were willing to spend up front to get the NHL.
So what does the NHL do, if faced with a league with a $55 million cap per team? Do they match it? Or do they watch as the Crosbys, Ovechkins, Malkins, Kovalchouks and Lecavaliers depart for richer pastures? Faced with such a situation, more and more owners will probably bail, and take whatever money Bain offers them. Corporate mergers happen all the time, because its better to be together, than competing against one another. Heck, its how Edmonton got into the NHL, after all. Once that happens, Bain can recover the NHL name and logos, and the Stanley Cup, and become the sole owner of the NHL, as they apparently want to be.
me2 said:
No. They can't force a buyout, they can't make a hostile takeover.
Again, not a buyout in terms of shares, but in making life so miserable for the owners its in their best interests to sell.
me2 said:
Yes, unless they find another two or three billion dollars.
Apparently they have it, and reports are they were willing to go higher than $3.5 billion, so...
me2 said:
That's pixie talk. He's trying to think up ways to make his players a basic wage and earn himself a paycheque. Winters is a bored by the lockout as the rest of us. Its just an attempt to worry the owners into caving in. Both sides have been spreading enough crap to fertilize a 1000 acres.
Regardless of your opinion of it, Winter is talking about it. Conway isn't reporting on some mythical European Super League backed by an unknown Swiss billionaire, he's reporting the on-the-record musings of a well-known, powerful hockey figure. Should everybody just ignore it? Why is Conway biased for reporting something that is actually going on?
me2 said:
Yes. Will it have the desired effect, I have no idea.
So in your learned opinion, all those lawyers talking about the potential difficulties facing the NHL in its attempt to bring in replacement players are wrong? In your opinion Conway is biased for reporting what those lawyers have to say??
You'll have to excuse me for my scepticism, but I'm going to continue to read journalists who bring in more recognizable and reputable opinions on the matter...
me2 said:
If the owners choose to sell to Bain, then Bain will attempt to make the NHL franchises very profitable, and milk hundreds of millions worth of profit from the NHL. Guess who's pockets that comes from (not the owners).
From the players, and, in my speculative opinion, from the people who buy shares in the new NHL, once Bain takes it public. What's the point? Again, Conway isn't talking about the players, or how they stand to benefit from Bain, or Bain is going to do once they get the league, or the perils and pitfalls of a Bain-owned NHL. He's talking about the owners, and the rival leagues/options that are springing up during this lockout. Because Conway doesn't mention that a centrally owned league could conceivably stick all the best players in LA and New York for ratings purposes, does that mean the article is biased? Because Conway doesn't mention that Bain could take the league public and make hundreds of millions of dollars, the article is biased? Because Conway doesn't mention that a centrally owned league could conceivably fold up 6-10 non-profitable markets, as any large corporation does on a regular basis, the article is biased?
There are lots of things Conway didn't mention. So what? His article wasn't about those things. Just because you guys read into that its a players versus owners article, and that Conway is trying to say the players are going to win, doesn't mean that it is. Again, he never once mentions the NHLPA, or how ANY of those options would be beneficial to them, and yet you all assume he is biased because you think that is what he is doing.
I don't get it.