Russ Conway :New league, or will NHL replacements work?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Timmy

Registered User
Feb 2, 2005
10,691
26
hockeyscribe22 said:
Russ Conway is losing his objectivity. Fast. Given his history, it is natural that he would favor the player’s side. But this article, he has let his heart overrule his head which is never a good thing for a journalist.

Pleazzeee!! Conway is the one journalist who actually does research to support and counter react against his opinions! He has more sources than Bob Woodward! Trust me, he's legit!

Yeah, 700 of 'em.
 

wazee

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,140
0
Visit site
JohnnyReb said:
I'm not sure why you think he is losing his objectivity. The only "leap" he makes is to guess that a couple of big market teams like Toronto and Philadelphia would jump to a rival league. Other than that, where has he strayed?
Well, that is a pretty big one, isn't it?

JohnnyReb said:
Conway goes out of his way to point out the short-comings of the WHA, post past and present, stating the "comical" beginnings of its first incarnation, and the "hockey hotbed" quip at Omaha's expense in its second re-incarnation. Other than that, he states what the WHA is planning on doing, and the effects the old WHA had on the NHL, even though that league too, was dismissed as a joke at the time. But is it not true that star players defected to the WHA, a bidding war was started, and the league eventually had to swallow Edmonton, Winnipeg, Hartford and Quebec? Where is his "lack of objectivity" here? Seems like he is simply stating facts. IF the WHA gets off the ground, then yes, it would provide the players with options, and yes, if anything has been learned from history, the NHL should be wary of it.
Yes. Conway does point out the problems with the old WHA, but his big point is that the old WHA was, and a new WHA would be, a major threat to the NHL. And the difficulties in getting a new league up and running are limited to one brief paragraph…
Rich Conway said:
Put a plan together, draw some investors, put teams in major markets, come up with an aggressive TV broadcasting package, siphon off some top-name NHL players, price it right for the fans -- and guess what? For less than a third of the $3.5 billion that Bain offered for the NHL, a new league could be off and skating on a full-fledged breakaway.
Compare that to the paragraphs he devotes to the problems the NHL would have fielding replacement players…notice how Conway minimizes the difficulties for the WHA and maximizes the problems of the NHL? IMO, that is showing a bias.

JohnnyReb said:
He also has a quote from Vataha stating "we're not going away." If they aren't going away, then they only have two options, right? Convince the owners to sell, or... force the owners to sell. The best way to force them to sell, would be to start up a rival league, poach some big market teams (like Philadelphia and Toronto, Conway's only leap of faith - albeit a big one), and drive the NHL to its knees, so that they would have no choice but to merge/sell to Bain. Bain was willing to drop a minimum of $3.5 billion on the NHL, something tells me they would have a lot of reserves if they wanted to go toe-to-toe with the NHL.
Yes, Conway runs the ‘we’re not going away’ quote in the opening paragraphs of the article and buries the ‘we are not looking to start a new league’ down much lower in the article…another example of illustrating how the story is slanted. I do not get the picture from anything I have read about Bain that they are able to go toe-to-toe with the NHL owners. The ‘we’re not going away’ quote could mean that they are going to make a bigger offer later. The Bain group controls about 17B in assets. Kroenke, Laurie, and the King’s owner are worth about 13B, and there are other billionaires scattered throughout the owner’s group so I doubt they will be forced into selling. Besides that, the players, not the owners, should be shivering in their boots at the idea of the Bain group owning the NHL. If Russ Conway was interested in providing a picture of who the Bain group really threatened, he might have included this quote, "When you have owners competing both on the ice and in business, it Pejorative Slurs revenue growth and drives up expenses," said Game Plan chairman Robert Caporale. "The individual team ownership system has built-in structural impediments that are immediately solved by the single-entity model." Game Plan is connected to the Bain Group. The quote comes from the Detroit Free Press and I will include the link below. Conway’s slant that the Bain group provides a threat to the owners instead of the players is simply astounding.

JohnnyReb said:
Don't think it really matters to Bain what Leaf fans think. It would be all about scorched earth warfare. If the Leafs ownership group decides to abandon the NHL, where would the NHL Toronto Maple Leafs play? The ACC would be taken out of commission, and is Maple Leaf Garden still available for hockey? Where would the Flyers play? Doesn't Snyder own the arena there, too?

The defection of one or two big markets to a rival league would be a devastating blow to the NHL. That's a fact. No bias on Conway's part there, other than to hypothesize that Toronto and Philadelphia are the two to go. And even then, Conway points out that there is no guarantee of success, as the USFL and the XFL proved. How is this biased?
Conway is building one theoretical blow to the NHL on a theoretical league. And we are supposed to take this seriously. This is the statement that caused me to say Conway was writing from the heart instead of the head.

JohnnyReb said:
And Winters seemed more than willing to talk about the venture. Does that make Conway biased, or merely a good journalist, reporting on what is going on? The option is obviously being explored, why is Conway being biased by reporting on it?
Winters came out of the meeting the agents had with Bob Goodenow last week ready to talk about how many how strong the union position was. No doubt he is more than willing to talk. However, all his ‘ventures’ are right now is talk. And Conway presents them as though they are a real possibility.

JohnnyReb said:
Everybody has always said that replacement players are a last resort. Even the owners have said this. Last resort usually imply desperation, in my mind. "We can't get anything else done, we need to get hockey going, we have to do this."

Where is the bias?

Just for the record, I do not like the idea of using replacement players. I think the owners should wait the players out. But I don’t get to make that decision.

Where is the bias, you ask? I have tried to point it out in answer to your questions above. I will give a more generalized answer here. The bias is in implying the players have 2 or 3 good options and the owners have none. The bias is providing only one perspective from the owner’s/management side and that perspective was from an executive (not an owner) who, ever so conveniently , supports Conway’s point. The bias is in acting as though the Bain group’s offer threatens the owners instead of the players. The bias is in saying the owner’s planning for replacement players is desperate, whereas the mumblings of an agent about a new league with a North American and a European branch is a real possibility.

Even with the bias in this piece, Conway is a far cry from being in the same heap with Strachan and Brooks. His reputation is well earned. But in this case he is leading with his heart. It is understandable. But that doesn’t mean he should be given a free pass on it.

Edit: Opps, forgot the link for the Freep article. Here it is: www.freep.com/sports/hockey/nhl4e_20050304.htm
 
Last edited:

hockeyscribe22*

Guest
Weezee...

Well said. You are doing just what I feel Conway does. Standing by your opinion and providing evidence to support it.

Unlike, Strachan and Brooks!
 

Isles72

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,520
465
Canada
whenever Conway is a guest on leafs lunch (which is often enough)I get the impression he's on the owners side .
 

Bicycle Repairman

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,687
1
Visit site
hockeyscribe22 said:
Well said. You are doing just what I feel Conway does. Standing by your opinion and providing evidence to support it.

Unlike, Strachan and Brooks!

Nothing brightens my mornings more than what I call a "Larry Brooks Hat Trick."

1. A leaked document.

2. A contradictory Bettman quote.

3. A good Edmonton Oilers jab.

:yo:
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
JohnnyReb said:
I'm not sure why you think he is losing his objectivity. The only "leap" he makes is to guess that a couple of big market teams like Toronto and Philadelphia would jump to a rival league. Other than that, where has he strayed?

Its one thing to be biased but semi-factually based (Conway) and another to be biased, vitriolic and fantasy based (Brooks). The tone of Conway's pieces gives the game away. You can tell he hates certain owners.


The defection of one or two big markets to a rival league would be a devastating blow to the NHL. That's a fact. No bias on Conway's part there, other than to hypothesize that Toronto and Philadelphia are the two to go. And even then, Conway points out that there is no guarantee of success, as the USFL and the XFL proved. How is this biased?

If the rival league looks too successful the NHL would have to cave on a some demands and open for business. The question is then, what happens for the new XHL? Can the XHL survive with just the Philly Aeroplanes (ex-Flyers), Toronto Pensioners (ex-Leafs) and a bunch of scrub teams?

If the XHL goes the same way as the XFL, what then becomes of the Pensioners and Aeroplanes? The NHL won't let them back in after that backstabbing effort. Does the Teachers Fund fold the Pensioners and lose a $280m asset?
 

Bicycle Repairman

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,687
1
Visit site
Thunderstruck said:
Yes, they do need to be held to standards. I'd suggest that certification by the National Sport Governing bodies in Canada and the States would be a far more appropriate way to ensure that those standards are indeed "professional" and not merely at the whim of the current head of the PA.
National Sports Governing bodies (at least in Canada) apply to amateur sports. Unless, of course, you're advocating more government intervention in the affairs of business. :dunno:

I suppose a case could be made for a self-regulating association of player agents. Then again, a players' association would still have to officially recognize it.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Bicycle Repairman said:
National Sports Governing bodies (at least in Canada) apply to amateur sports. Unless, of course, you're advocating more government intervention in the affairs of business. :dunno:

I suppose a case could be made for a self-regulating association of player agents. Then again, a players' association would still have to officially recognize it.

Players retain agents while still amateurs, so regulating their behaviour at that important time makes sense.

Hockey Canada and Hockey USA also deal with NHLPA members during the Olympics and various other international competitions, so their is obviously precedent for the governning bodies to deal with professionals as well as amateurs.
 

JohnnyReb

Registered User
Apr 26, 2003
704
0
Visit site
wazee said:
Well, that is a pretty big one, isn't it?

Indeed. Probably why he posted it as a hypothetical question, preceded by the all mighty "if."

wazee said:
Yes. Conway does point out the problems with the old WHA, but his big point is that the old WHA was, and a new WHA would be, a major threat to the NHL. And the difficulties in getting a new league up and running are limited to one brief paragraph…

Don't see where he said the new WHA would be a major threat to the NHL. All I see is an admonishment to the NHL to learn from history.

If there was one expensive lesson the NHL should have learned, it was not to laugh at the idea of a new league.

Is it not true, all that he writes about the old WHA and the affect it had on the old NHL?

wazee said:
Compare that to the paragraphs he devotes to the problems the NHL would have fielding replacement players…notice how Conway minimizes the difficulties for the WHA and maximizes the problems of the NHL? IMO, that is showing a bias.

Still don't see the bias. Is everything he wrote a Strachan-like lie? Or is it simply the truth, that all these points are impediments to the NHL bringing in replacement players?

Its a cult of NHL purity he's up against. If the NHL says its possible, then its possible. If the NHL says there is nothing to worry about, then there is nothing to worry about. Replacement players will happen, because the NHL said it will happen. Rival leagues are not threats, because the NHL says they are not threats.

Like a good journalist, Conway goes beyond the typical NHL press release and actually explores the issues. There ARE complicated issues involved in bringing in replacement players. There ARE two, maybe even three groups vying potentially trying to start up rival leagues. All facts, interspersed with his very clearly defined speculation on what could happen. "IF" he says, not a Strachan "Leafs are about to bail."

wazee said:
Yes, Conway runs the ‘we’re not going away’ quote in the opening paragraphs of the article and buries the ‘we are not looking to start a new league’ down much lower in the article…another example of illustrating how the story is slanted.

Seems like you have more of a problem with the editorial layout, than any actual bias. "Its too far down in the article, and the font is much too small..."

Personally, I think you are stretching a little bit here, to "prove" Conway's bias, which, unfortunately, is demonstrating your own bias. Nothing wrong with that, everybody has a bias one way or the other, including myself, but don't leap at straws, to "prove" your point. One quote is in the top third of the article, while the other quote is in the bottom half? Wouldn't it have been much easier simply to omit the "biased" quote? If he had of inverted the order of the quotes, would that have made him biased against the NHLPA, whom he never even mentions in this article?

wazee said:
I do not get the picture from anything I have read about Bain that they are able to go toe-to-toe with the NHL owners. The ‘we’re not going away’ quote could mean that they are going to make a bigger offer later. The Bain group controls about 17B in assets. Kroenke, Laurie, and the King’s owner are worth about 13B, and there are other billionaires scattered throughout the owner’s group so I doubt they will be forced into selling.

Assuming they want to. Bain may be making a calculated gamble that NHL owners will not be willing to pump in the $4 billion its going to be need to fight them off. They may have that much money, but is it worth it to them to use it against Bain? We know Bain is willing to spend that much (or at least $3.5 billion), how much are NHL owners willing to spend? Like any hostile takeover, one group is gambling that they can simply outbid the other. Everybody, as they say, has a price.

wazee said:
Besides that, the players, not the owners, should be shivering in their boots at the idea of the Bain group owning the NHL.

Not sure why that is relevent. Would the players benefit? Probably not. Would the current set of NHL owners still be in charge of the NHL? Nope. How would that be beneficial to them?

wazee said:
If Russ Conway was interested in providing a picture of who the Bain group really threatened, he might have included this quote, "When you have owners competing both on the ice and in business, it Pejorative Slurs revenue growth and drives up expenses," said Game Plan chairman Robert Caporale. "The individual team ownership system has built-in structural impediments that are immediately solved by the single-entity model." Game Plan is connected to the Bain Group. The quote comes from the Detroit Free Press and I will include the link below. Conway’s slant that the Bain group provides a threat to the owners instead of the players is simply astounding.

Again, he doesn't mention the players at all, either as being beneficiaries, or otherwise. Why are you bringing them up? You are demonstrating your bias again - "never mind the owners, its the players who should be worried!" This article has nothing to do with the players. If Bain attempts a hostile takeover, or if they simply buy out the league, then every single current NHL owner would be out of the business. That's just logical no?

wazee said:
Conway is building one theoretical blow to the NHL on a theoretical league. And we are supposed to take this seriously. This is the statement that caused me to say Conway was writing from the heart instead of the head.

Actually, he's building three theoretical blows, of which one is real (the WHA), one is being explored (Winters) and one is speculative.

wazee said:
Winters came out of the meeting the agents had with Bob Goodenow last week ready to talk about how many how strong the union position was. No doubt he is more than willing to talk. However, all his ‘ventures’ are right now is talk. And Conway presents them as though they are a real possibility.

I don't see that at all. In fact, the "biased" Conway states right at the beginning of that segment that "Winter isn't predicting an all-out effort to form a rival league." Wouldn't a biased article simply have ommitted that?

wazee said:
Just for the record, I do not like the idea of using replacement players. I think the owners should wait the players out. But I don’t get to make that decision.

And for the record, I think this is what the owners should do too, if they really want to crush the union. I see no benefit to replacement players, unless they are afraid the union really is as strong as they claim to be, and that simply waiting them out won't work.

wazee said:
Where is the bias, you ask? I have tried to point it out in answer to your questions above. I will give a more generalized answer here. The bias is in implying the players have 2 or 3 good options and the owners have none.

He never mentions the players. Again, if there is any bias showing, its your own. Is the WHA not trying to form? Did Bain not try to buy the league, and is it not safe to assume that a group willing to spend $3.5 billion or more is not simply going to disappear after one 30 minute presentation? Is Rich Winter not talking about a trans-Atlantic league and exploring that possibility? These are all true. On the flip side, is it not true that the NHL has publicly stated, rather vigourously I might add, that there will be hockey next fall, and is it also true that unless a deal is reached in the interim, the only way they can do this by bringing in replacements? Where is the bias, other than in refusing to dismiss the reality of potential rivals, or in blindly accepting the ease with which the NHL claims they can bring in replacements? Are there not two, possibly three groups looking at getting into professional hockey? Is bringing in replacements going to be as easy as pie?

wazee said:
The bias is providing only one perspective from the owner’s/management side and that perspective was from an executive (not an owner) who, ever so conveniently , supports Conway’s point. The bias is in acting as though the Bain group’s offer threatens the owners instead of the players. The bias is in saying the owner’s planning for replacement players is desperate, whereas the mumblings of an agent about a new league with a North American and a European branch is a real possibility.

Now you are REALLY showing your bias. The executive points out that in his opinion, using replacement players will backfire. Thats hardly a unique position. And again, Conway never mentions the players with respect to Bain's offer, an nowhere does he say it would be beneficial to them. Why do you keep turning this into a players versus owners thing? If the owners lose control of the NHL to Bain, then they will no longer be in control of the NHL. How this would affect the players is not in the scope of this article.

wazee said:
Even with the bias in this piece, Conway is a far cry from being in the same heap with Strachan and Brooks. His reputation is well earned. But in this case he is leading with his heart. It is understandable. But that doesn’t mean he should be given a free pass on it.

No journalist should be given a free pass. But don't leap to non-existant conclusions simply because he presents options that run counter-current to your belief that the owners are in full control here.
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
Its hard to believe this piece so riled up some they tried to impugn the authors credibility based on what he wrote. Sounds almost desperate.

The point about the Leafs and Flyers taking their teams and crossing to a new league is an interesting thought that's been mentioned here before. Hard to believe it could happen, but, hard to believe they'd cancel a whole season
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
JohnnyReb said:
Assuming they want to. Bain may be making a calculated gamble that NHL owners will not be willing to pump in the $4 billion its going to be need to fight them off. They may have that much money, but is it worth it to them to use it against Bain? We know Bain is willing to spend that much (or at least $3.5 billion), how much are NHL owners willing to spend? Like any hostile takeover, one group is gambling that they can simply outbid the other. Everybody, as they say, has a price.

The owners have no concern whatsoever about Bain.

Bain is looking at the NHL as a potentaily undervalued enterprise that could be made more profitable as a single owner (MLS model) league. They see it as a more efficient model that could allow them to keep current revenue projections, but cut player and other costs, and thus make more money. They have given no indication that they have any interest in starting another league - in fact they have explicitly stated just the opposite. In fact, their entire business model of cutting player costs totally falls apart if they have a competeing league driving up salaries.

The NHL owners can just ignore Bain and do not have to spend any money whatsoever. For Bains model to work, they have to get EVERY team to sell, and there is no way to do that. Sure, some owners might be tempted to take the money and run, but Bain's is an all or nothing offer. And this is not a hostile takeover - the NHL is not a publicly held corporation where you can buy up 50% plus one ofthe shares and take control. If a team, any team, doesn't want to sell, there is absolutely nothing Bain can do to force it. And given the ego driven nature of professional sports ownership, do you think there is any chance in hell of all the owners selling off their toys.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
JohnnyReb said:
Is it not true, all that he writes about the old WHA and the affect it had on the old NHL?

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.


Still don't see the bias.

Hint: the authors tone gives it way.

Assuming they want to. Bain may be making a calculated gamble that NHL owners will not be willing to pump in the $4 billion its going to be need to fight them off. They may have that much money, but is it worth it to them to use it against Bain? We know Bain is willing to spend that much (or at least $3.5 billion), how much are NHL owners willing to spend? Like any hostile takeover, one group is gambling that they can simply outbid the other. Everybody, as they say, has a price.

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.

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.



If Bain attempts a hostile takeover, or if they simply buy out the league, then every single current NHL owner would be out of the business. That's just logical no?

No. They can't force a buyout, they can't make a hostile takeover.


Again, if there is any bias showing, its your own. Is the WHA not trying to form? Did Bain not try to buy the league, and is it not safe to assume that a group willing to spend $3.5 billion or more is not simply going to disappear after one 30 minute presentation?

Yes, unless they find another two or three billion dollars.

Is Rich Winter not talking about a trans-Atlantic league and exploring that possibility? These are all true.

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.

Where is the bias, other than in refusing to dismiss the reality of potential rivals, or in blindly accepting the ease with which the NHL claims they can bring in replacements? Are there not two, possibly three groups looking at getting into professional hockey? Is bringing in replacements going to be as easy as pie?

Yes. Will it have the desired effect, I have no idea.

And again, Conway never mentions the players with respect to Bain's offer, an nowhere does he say it would be beneficial to them. Why do you keep turning this into a players versus owners thing? If the owners lose control of the NHL to Bain, then they will no longer be in control of the NHL. How this would affect the players is not in the scope of this article.

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).
 

JohnnyReb

Registered User
Apr 26, 2003
704
0
Visit site
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.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
JohnnyReb said:
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.
Yes, but the WHA owners lost a A LOT more money than they cost the NHL. Not a great model to follow if you want to make money.

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).

Why do you keep up this fiction that Bain has any interest in starting up a new league. They don't - they've said that themselves.

What do you think Bain is - a bunch of ego driven people who want to throw away money by starting a new professional sports league (a competing one at that), something that hasn't been successful in over 30 years - the AFL was the last real successful example (No I do not consider the old WHA one). No, Bain is an investment group which specializes in buying what they think are undervalued businesses that they think they can turn around. Just today it was anounced that they are part of the group that is buying Toys-R-Us for $6.6B dollars and taking it private. These are not people who start sports leagues for a lark.


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.
Bain has no interest in taking over any team or part of the league. There's was an all or nothing offer. Their business model can only work in a single owner league, and certainly not in a league with competition for players driving up costs.

And again I repeat, most of the teams are owned by private corporations, and there is no way to force them to sell. I suppose they can mount a hostile takeover of Comcast and the public corporation owned teams, but I doubt they have the hundreds of billions of dollars to do that.

I suppose they could throw enough money around to make an offer the owners couldn't pass up, but then they would have overpaid and be in a position where they would never recoup their investment.

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.
Again with the "if Bain were to start a new league". Do you have any indication from anything Bain has said that they have any interest in starting a new league.

Your whole scenerio is a pipedream with no sane business plan to support it.

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.

They dont care, because this insane pipedream of a BHL (Bain Hockey League) exists only in your confused mind.


Apparently they have it, and reports are they were willing to go higher than $3.5 billion, so...
Maybe they will, but it will still be an all or nothing offer for the NHL and not a rival league. They are a takeover investment group. They can get a much better return on thier money than by trying to start a rival league.

As the WHA learned - how do you make a small fortune running a rival league - start with a big one.


Now maybe some crazed Russian Billionaire may come over and try to spend his money before the Kremlin steals it back, or Bill Gates may wake up one morning and decide he wants a new toy (Damn, Paul has those sports teams, I know, I'll show him up by owning a whole sports league), or aliens may show up with billions of credits and an intergalactic TV deal, but unless something equally likely happens, there will be no real credible hockey league formed to compete with the NHL.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
JohnnyReb said:
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).

Actually, no that higher $55m cap would be worse for Bain. Sticking teams in martkets like Los Vegas, Portland, Winnipeg etc is not going to bring in the revenues needed to fund a $55m payroll. Sticking these teams in established NHL markets will split the fans and produce even less revenue. These teams would go quickly go under taking pressure off the NHL.

Bain is not out to make big loses and take big risks. Its out to monopolise the NHL, crush the union's power and make lots of easy cash. Opening up risky, loss making teams is very unlikely to be in their plans since its the opposite of their thinkning.

No, they aren't. But if Bain creates an atmosphere that forces NHL owners to sell... Say they buy out 10 NHL teams,
Why would the NHL commisioner permit someone to buy 10 teams? These teams would have to leave the NHL before being sold, they would most likely be the weakest teams. The NHL might just use this as an excuse for contraction.
and convince Toronto and New York to join them (not sell to them, but become partners with Bain).
This would kill their monopoly and place them in exactly the same position the current NHL is in. Bain want a monopoly so they can limit the payrolls. As soon as they bring in outside teams they open themselves up for collusion charges.
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.
And after the Bain backed $55m league fails due to its inability to fund its $55m? What then happens to the Toronto and the other weasel? Goodbye.

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.

Well, if they stick to budget and a cheap cap most could survive long enough to watch the Bain league fail. Once it fails the new, trimmed down NHL of 18 teams then make hundreds of millions of dollars by selling new Maple Leaf and Rangers franchises to Toronto and NYR. Plus another 4-6 franchises to replace the early defectors should bring in a few hundred million more.

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.

Maybe, or maybe Bain will lose billions and the remaining NHL owners will outlast the Bain group and recapture lost money by selling franchises.



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.
How is Winnipeg going to fund a $55m payroll with $50m in revenue? Or do you expect that the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund is going to give them $25m per year worth of the retired teachers money? I don't think so.


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.

Bain are not trying to build an enterprise. They are trying to buy the whole NHL, make it a monopoly, screw the players for every cent they can get, make the NHL profitable and sell it off. Bain are only prepared to spend billions for what they think is a sure thing. They are not interested in gambling billions on a war of attritiion.

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.

They can not afford to lose billions AND buy out the NHL teams.

Again, not a buyout in terms of shares, but in making life so miserable for the owners its in their best interests to sell.

You are misreading the situation completely.

Apparently they have it, and reports are they were willing to go higher than $3.5 billion, so...

$3.5B to get a sure thing they would pay more. Sure. They probably have investors and bankers backing them. Those backers and bankers are not going to put money in a venture with a low potential return and a high risk.


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?

There was an excellent article detailing why its not a good idea. Its based on past attempt to do similar things in Europe.

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?

No. They are probably well based opinions. You asked if they could declare impasse and hire replacement, I think the answer is yes. Will it hold up to legal challenges? Will it be successful? "I have no idea."

In your opinion Conway is biased for reporting what those lawyers have to say??
No.
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
me2 said:
Bain is not out to make big loses and take big risks. Its out to monopolise the NHL, crush the union's power and make lots of easy cash. Opening up risky, loss making teams is very unlikely to be in their plans since its the opposite of their thinkning.


$3.5B to get a sure thing they would pay more. Sure. They probably have investors and bankers backing them. Those backers and bankers are not going to put money in a venture with a low potential return and a high risk.

What about a good return with high risk. If there is a void there will be entrpreneurs and venture capitalists and business plans. Its not inconceivable that like a new Cnadian airline, they would enter the fray knowing the market isnt big enough for the two of them.

And low return/high risk hasnt disuaded many who wish to buy sport steams from doing so. They are doing it now while the lockout is on and there is tremendous uncertainty. That would seem pretty high risk to me.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
thinkwild said:
What about a good return with high risk. If there is a void there will be entrpreneurs and venture capitalists and business plans. Its not inconceivable that like a new Cnadian airline, they would enter the fray knowing the market isnt big enough for the two of them.

Sure they might look at a high risk/high reward proposition. Starting an alternate league and hoping the NHL folds is not a high reward proposition. They could try and buy all of the top 16 teams and leave the rest to die a painful death. That could work, but it doesn't look like the top owners want to sell.

And low return/high risk hasnt disuaded many who wish to buy sport steams from doing so. They are doing it now while the lockout is on and there is tremendous uncertainty. That would seem pretty high risk to me.

They tend to be ego driven exercises not investment driven exercises (ie Bain).
 
Last edited:

JohnnyReb

Registered User
Apr 26, 2003
704
0
Visit site
me2 said:
Actually, no that higher $55m cap would be worse for Bain. Sticking teams in martkets like Los Vegas, Portland, Winnipeg etc is not going to bring in the revenues needed to fund a $55m payroll. Sticking these teams in established NHL markets will split the fans and produce even less revenue. These teams would go quickly go under taking pressure off the NHL.

The teams are not individually owned. Unless the whole new league goes under, they would be fine.

me2 said:
Bain is not out to make big loses and take big risks. Its out to monopolise the NHL, crush the union's power and make lots of easy cash. Opening up risky, loss making teams is very unlikely to be in their plans since its the opposite of their thinkning.

True enough. Hence the whole speculative nature of this aspect of the debate.

me2 said:
Why would the NHL commisioner permit someone to buy 10 teams? These teams would have to leave the NHL before being sold, they would most likely be the weakest teams. The NHL might just use this as an excuse for contraction.

Not necessarily. If I were Bain, I wouldn't touch places like Phoenix or Carolina, and simply let them die on their own. But I would put it in serious offers for places like Edmonton, Calgary, the Islanders, New Jersey and Buffalo. Even if Bettman refuses to allow them to sell, they can simply suspend operations for a year, and keep their arenas closed to any alternative games. I mean, they're losing tonnes of money, right? They're losing less by not playing, right? Wouldn't it be "smarter" to suspend operations?

me2 said:
This would kill their monopoly and place them in exactly the same position the current NHL is in. Bain want a monopoly so they can limit the payrolls. As soon as they bring in outside teams they open themselves up for collusion charges.

A monopoly of three, besides being an oxy-moron, is still a lot better than owning one team in a 30 team league, or not owning anything.

me2 said:
And after the Bain backed $55m league fails due to its inability to fund its $55m? What then happens to the Toronto and the other weasel? Goodbye.

Goodbye where? Is the NHL not going to put a franchise in Toronto or New York? Are they going to build new arenas in those cities, because the old ones are still controlled by the weasels?

And why wouldn't the new league be able to fund $55 million? They apparently have $3.5 billion to spend, no?

me2 said:
Well, if they stick to budget and a cheap cap most could survive long enough to watch the Bain league fail. Once it fails the new, trimmed down NHL of 18 teams then make hundreds of millions of dollars by selling new Maple Leaf and Rangers franchises to Toronto and NYR. Plus another 4-6 franchises to replace the early defectors should bring in a few hundred million more.

Lots of assumptions there. That teams will survive, that the Bain league will fail, that the new NHL will be able to build new arenas in Toronto and New York, that investors will be replace the defectors, for hundreds of millions more.

me2 said:
Maybe, or maybe Bain will lose billions and the remaining NHL owners will outlast the Bain group and recapture lost money by selling franchises.

Hence the risky nature of business.

me2 said:
How is Winnipeg going to fund a $55m payroll with $50m in revenue? Or do you expect that the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund is going to give them $25m per year worth of the retired teachers money? I don't think so.

That's exactly what I expect them to do. The Ontario Teachers Pension Fund would be the owners of Winnipeg. If they buy into this scheme in the first place, then they do so knowing full well they would have to prop up the team, at least in the short term.

Tell me - if Bain bought all 30 teams, do you think they wouldn't give any money to floundering franchises like Pittsburgh, Carolina and Phoenix? Isn't the whole point of a centrally owned league that there would be 100% revenue sharing, and cost controls? Or in the Bain 30 team league, were they simply going to leave each city to fend for itself, like they do now?

me2 said:
Bain are not trying to build an enterprise. They are trying to buy the whole NHL, make it a monopoly, screw the players for every cent they can get, make the NHL profitable and sell it off. Bain are only prepared to spend billions for what they think is a sure thing. They are not interested in gambling billions on a war of attritiion.

So you say. And you are probably right. But the NHL refused their offer outright, pretty much ridiculing them in the process, and yet here we have their spokesperson saying "we're not going away." How do you explain that? Are they going to resort to "pretty please, please, please, with sugar on top?"

me2 said:
They can not afford to lose billions AND buy out the NHL teams.

Wouldn't have to buy out teams at that point. And even if they did, it would be a failed venture. Just like if they bought the entire NHL for $3.5 billion, and the league never recovers from this lockout, and they never get that money back. $3.5 billion, up front. If the league made a $100 million profit every year, it would still take them 35 years just to get back their initial investment. They could go public, but then you are banking (literally) on the whims of the stock market. Where fortunes are made, and fortunes are lost. The riskiness of business.

me2 said:
You are misreading the situation completely.

I don't think I am misreading anything. Conway speculated on an alternative league, never once mentioning Bain as being the backers, and I simply speculated what Bain COULD do, should they decide not to take no for an answer.

me2 said:
$3.5B to get a sure thing they would pay more. Sure. They probably have investors and bankers backing them. Those backers and bankers are not going to put money in a venture with a low potential return and a high risk.

The NHL is a sure thing? Really?

me2 said:
There was an excellent article detailing why its not a good idea. Its based on past attempt to do similar things in Europe.

BIASED ARTICLE!!! BIASED ARTICLE!!!

Just kidding! But my original foray into this thread was intended merely to point out that just because Conway is reporting on what is going on, doesn't mean he is biased, anymore than he would be biased for reporting on the spokesperson for the IIHF deriding any attempts at a European Super League. What is, is, and nobody should be considered biased for reporting it.

me2 said:
No. They are probably well based opinions. You asked if they could declare impasse and hire replacement, I think the answer is yes. Will it hold up to legal challenges? Will it be successful? "I have no idea."

You think the answer is yes. Many do. Many others think the answer is no. Conway reported on the difficulties that many think the NHL would encompass trying to implement such a strategy. For that, he was labelled biased, and I, with shining armour and sword held high, leapt to his defense.

me2 said:

Me neither. Glad we agree on my original point. :)
 

Russian Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2003
2,475
0
Visit site
me2 said:
Its a shame the agents' independence is compromised by the fact the union controls their certification. :dunno:

What planet are you living ?

Certification is a part of almost every job in the world. You want to be plumber, go get your cards (A.K.A. Certification), an electrician ? go get your cards. A lawyer ? go get your licence !

NHLPA doesn't control any agents, the certification process is to ensure they're won't be any crooked agents that would be there to get only money from the players. See it as a trust bond on where the players can go when it's time to get an agent.

It's beyond me that you try to mislead the everyday people that comes in here with such garbage.

You're a pro-owner , fine but at least stop making distortion of the what is a certification from the NHLPA to an agent just because you hate the players or Goodenow.

It's not unusual , it's just common sense.

Maybe you're too young to remember or see it but there was a time where the NHLPA president was a financial criminal who was there to protect the owners interest & not their members. Maybe you hate Goodenow & it's fine but at least he's there for the players & the players ONLY !!!

Maybe you hate him for telling it for what it is but he's not there for the fans & never claim it to be. On the opposite side, you have owners who mislead the fans that they do it for YOU when it's the EXACT SAME THING as the NHLPA, they do that FOR THEMSELVES !!!!
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
Oh the irony. So many people here who are blatantly biased towards the owner's side of things bashing a renowned and well-respected columnist while trying to disprove or ignore everything in his article because of his perceived pro-player bias. Attack the messenger instead of actually reading what is written and debating the merits of that.

Conway isn't even pro-player. He has lashed out against both sides. But at least he has the guts to question the actions and motivations of the owners instead of nominating them for sainthood. For that he's villified around here. Sad.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Russian fan,

You are clearly confused.

No one is stating that certification of agents is a bad thing. Howver, allowing the PA to do the certification sets up a natural conflict of interests.

If the agents didn't have to worry about the PA's reaction do you think they might have been better able to represent THEIR clients interests by putting pressure on the PA leadership?

After all the agent is "there for their players & their players ONLY" !!! Right?

There is no reason that agents have to be certified by the PA. Individual players would be far better off having the agents that they pay to look out for their interests free to do so without fear of losing their livelyhood.
 

Russian Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2003
2,475
0
Visit site
Thunderstruck said:
Russian fan,

You are clearly confused.

No one is stating that certification of agents is a bad thing. Howver, allowing the PA to do the certification sets up a natural conflict of interests.

If the agents didn't have to worry about the PA's reaction do you think they might have been better able to represent THEIR clients interests by putting pressure on the PA leadership?

After all the agent is "there for their players & their players ONLY" !!! Right?

There is no reason that agents have to be certified by the PA. Individual players would be far better off having the agents that they pay to look out for their interests free to do so without fear of losing their livelyhood.

I'm sorry but you're wrong ,just plain wrong. I won't post a 10 paragraph explaining why, it's not worth it.

certification is WAY TOO IMPORTANT for you to understand. The best interest for their client is not necessarily having a paycheck no matter what.

ah well, do it you way....
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Russian Fan said:
I'm sorry but you're wrong ,just plain wrong. I won't post a 10 paragraph explaining why, it's not worth it.

certification is WAY TOO IMPORTANT for you to understand. The best interest for their client is not necessarily having a paycheck no matter what.

ah well, do it you way....

Once again you are confused.

I'm not suggesting certification isn't WAY TOO IMPORTANT, just that the players would be better off if another body, who doesn't have a natural conflict of interests, was charged with providing that certification.

If you can provide a single paragraph (let alone 10) that explains why it is in the players best interest to have the NHLPA with a choke hold on the agents the players pay to look out for their interests, I'll gladly read it.

This negotiation is a classic example of why the players would be better off if their agents could act independently of the PA without fear of decertification.
 

Russian Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2003
2,475
0
Visit site
Thunderstruck said:
Once again you are confused.

I'm not suggesting certification isn't WAY TOO IMPORTANT, just that the players would be better off if another body, who doesn't have a natural conflict of interests, was charged with providing that certification.

If you can provide a single paragraph (let alone 10) that explains why it is in the players best interest to have the NHLPA with a choke hold on the agents the players pay to look out for their interests, I'll gladly read it.

This negotiation is a classic example of why the players would be better off if their agents could act independently of the PA without fear of decertification.


who's confused really ?

You because you're thinking the one who certified agent are lockout or me because being lockout & certification DOES HAVE ANY INFLUENCE with one another ?

keep the blinders gary
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->