Six Clubs dragging down the rest of the league???

[DeadPool]

I was reading an article on the impending lock-out. There was this interesting tid-bit midway through the article:

"They assured us during the meeting in Montreal that they would use the information we discussed to formulate a new proposal," Daly said. "They went backwards on their proposal from a year ago."

The union's original proposal would have generated $215 million in revenue sharing. It was revised, the union said, because only six clubs are dragging down the rest of the league.

Does anyone have any ideas which 6 clubs are dragging the rest of the league???

Click to read more...

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Does anyone have any ideas which 6 clubs are dragging the rest of the league???

Nobody knows for sure, but the best guesses are New York, Washington, St. Louis, Carolina, Islanders and Florida.

Tom

 

[broman]

See another thread for educated guesses:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=102921

 

[GKJ]

Does anyone have any ideas which 6 clubs are dragging the rest of the league???

There is another thread on this. At least 4 of them are Rangers, Islanders, Penguins and Devils. Another is the Blues but they told the league they are fine and know what they're doing. The last one is likely to be either Anaheim or Carolina.

 

[ceber]

If it was just six clubs "dragging down the rest of the league" how could they get the ownership groups to agree to a lockout?

I'll buy that six clubs amount for a significant portion of the losses, but if those six clubs were more in line with the other 24 I think we'd still be in this situation. Why would 24 ownership groups agree to this lockout to just help the six who can't get it together?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

If it was just six clubs "dragging down the rest of the league" how could they get the ownership groups to agree to a lockout?

I'll buy that six clubs amount for a significant portion of the losses, but if those six clubs were more in line with the other 24 I think we'd still be in this situation. Why would 24 ownership groups agree to this lockout to just help the six who can't get it together?

because they see the jackpot at the end of the rainbow.

dr

 

[ceber]

because they see the jackpot at the end of the rainbow.

dr

Pretty big risk to take, don't you think? Willing to throw everything away? Seems like a simpler answer is that a majority of the teams are having troubles that they don't think they can solve without a new CBA, not just 6.

 

[GKJ]

Pretty big risk to take, don't you think? Willing to throw everything away? Seems like a simpler answer is that a majority of the teams are having troubles that they don't think they can solve without a new CBA, not just 6.

There's those 6 teams, but there are 14 more who claim losses on the season and 30 of them want to make more money.


Although I can't see 30 NHL owners wanting a lockout. I'm interested in seeing what the vote is for a lockout. I'm assuming they need 24 for it to be a go.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Pretty big risk to take, don't you think? Willing to throw everything away? Seems like a simpler answer is that a majority of the teams are having troubles that they don't think they can solve without a new CBA, not just 6.

Is it? There are hundreds of millions of dollars in profits a year at stake if the owners get their way. It will be a very big payoff for them if they win.

At what cost? As long as the NHL has a playoff - that's where the profits are with big revenues and small costs - they won't lose much if they lose half a season to a lockout. The best strategy for the owners is to rattle sabres and lock out the players hoping they will crack. If they do not, the teams extract other concessions in January and cave on the core issue.

If they win, they win big. If the lose, they lose small. They are eliminating the least profitable games of the year.

Tom

 

[ceber]

If they win, they win big. If the lose, they lose small. They are eliminating the least profitable games of the year.

Assuming anyone cares when they come back, right? Seems like here in the US people already have given up. There's not even much talk about the NHL, and the lock-out hasn't happened yet. If there's any sort of fan backlash like there was with baseball (coupled with a pretty small tv contract), I think the owners stand to lose a pretty significant amount of money.

 

[GKJ]

Is it? There are hundreds of millions of dollars in profits a year at stake if the owners get their way. It will be a very big payoff for them if they win.

At what cost? As long as the NHL has a playoff - that's where the profits are with big revenues and small costs - they won't lose much if they lose half a season to a lockout. The best strategy for the owners is to rattle sabres and lock out the players hoping they will crack. If they do not, the teams extract other concessions in January and cave on the core issue.

If they win, they win big. If the lose, they lose small. They are eliminating the least profitable games of the year.

Tom

They're still losing money though. That's a lot of games. How will they get that money back? Well, they'll make the fans pay for it of course.

 

[CREW99AW]

I was reading an article on the impending lock-out. There was this interesting tid-bit midway through the article:



Does anyone have any ideas which 6 clubs are dragging the rest of the league???

Forbes magazine's Dec. 2003 issue ranked the 30 teams in terms of financial value.Part of the article showed how much $ each team claimed to be making or losing.The only team listed in the top 10 that dropped significant salary by the end of the 2003-2004 season,are the Caps.


http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2003/1208/094tab.html

St.Louis lost $29.4m
Phoenix lost $21.1m
Washington lost $21m
Detroit lost $13.7m
Carolina lost $13m
NY Isles lost $10.9m
Anaheim lost $10.8m
NJ Devils lost $9.4m
FL Panthers lost $9.2m
San Jose lost $8.6m

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Assuming anyone cares when they come back, right? Seems like here in the US people already have given up. There's not even much talk about the NHL, and the lock-out hasn't happened yet. If there's any sort of fan backlash like there was with baseball (coupled with a pretty small tv contract), I think the owners stand to lose a pretty significant amount of money.

I agree that this is the wild card. The real danger is that hockey in the non-traditional areas goes back to square one at a time when really good teams are emerging in Florida, Atlanta and Nashville. But hockey is never on the radar screen in the US - absent a Bertuzzi or two. The chance of a fan backlash in the US seems slim when there isn't a "lash" to start with.

In the traditional areas fans will come back. There won't be a backlash because the NHL has done a masterful propaganda job and the fans are onside. If most fans support the owner's position, there can't be a backlash. Unless the fans signal loud and clear that a work stoppage is unacceptable, the risks are pretty small.

Baseball really took the hit when a World Series was cancelled. The other disputes didn't cause nearly the same problems. As long as there is a Stanley Cup awarded, I doubt if there will be long term problems. There weren't any last time even though the eventual deal could have been signed without a lockout.

Tom

 

[CREW99AW]

If it was just six clubs "dragging down the rest of the league" how could they get the ownership groups to agree to a lockout?

I'll buy that six clubs amount for a significant portion of the losses, but if those six clubs were more in line with the other 24 I think we'd still be in this situation. Why would 24 ownership groups agree to this lockout to just help the six who can't get it together?

Those other 24 teams wouldn't lockout the players to 'help' the other 6 teams.Most of those other 24 teams, are also losing millions or barely breaking even.

 

[hockeytown9321]

There's those 6 teams, but there are 14 more who claim losses on the season and 30 of them want to make more money.


Although I can't see 30 NHL owners wanting a lockout. I'm interested in seeing what the vote is for a lockout. I'm assuming they need 24 for it to be a go.

On a TSN article today they said it would be unanimous. The question is how long will they be so unified?

 

[likea]

the Pittsburgh Penguins ARE NOT one of the teams talked about in the 6 teams losing 76% of the money the NHL suggested it lost last season...

if you look at the Levitts report the Pens are the team that lost the least that year

since Mario has owned the team the Pens have made money or broke even for the first 3 years, not alot but some, then the next 2 years when they started to decline the lost money but only somewhere around 3-5 million

the Pens have been very honest about what the lost this year and the year before and both times they stated it was below or about 5 million

I'm not sure where some of you get your information but the Pens are the one team that actually runs its team like business...which is the reason we sold off players, because we could not afford to pay the 5-11 million the all wanted

 

[chriss_co]

There are more than 6 teams losing money.

Lets face it, ticket prices are already too high. Not many fans can afford to attend a hockey game. So lets control player salaries and then reduce ticket prices as well.

That will bring interest to the game again because now the average fan can afford to attend games.

 

[zico]

Nobody knows for sure, but the best guesses are New York, Washington, St. Louis, Carolina, Islanders and Florida.

Tom

as far as the Blues are concerned, the reason why they claim 29 million in losses is that when Laurie bought the team for 100 million he financed it completley over a very short time period. His net worth is almost 3 billion dollars, he could have easily paid cash for it but didnt. Why not? because it is a huge tax write off for him. If you take out the interest and depreciation of the building the Blues are close to breaking even.

Just another way to make the books look bad for a team.

 

[GKJ]

There are more than 6 teams losing money.

Lets face it, ticket prices are already too high. Not many fans can afford to attend a hockey game. So lets control player salaries and then reduce ticket prices as well.

That will bring interest to the game again because now the average fan can afford to attend games.

The NHL doesn't care about who is attending the games. Most of the lower level seats are almost exclusively big shot, corporate people nowadays. People who can afford it. If people are coming to the games who can afford those seats night in and night how then screw the average fan.


I kind of like my row 14 seat in the 2nd level (there's 15 in the Wachovia Center)

 

[I am Jack's Fish]

The Panthers are definitely one of those 6 teams that has been losing money.

Russo of the Sun-Sentinel confirmed it in a recent story, and said as well the Panthers lost about 20 Million instead of the 9 Million associated with the Forbes story.

If this lockout goes longer than one season, look for the Panthers to be sold or folded.

 

[Terrier]

Rangers Losing $40 Million?

Today's NY Daily News WC story mentions a claim that the Rangers lost $40 million last year.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/232239p-199467c.html

 

[jol]

The Panthers are definitely one of those 6 teams that has been losing money.

Russo of the Sun-Sentinel confirmed it in a recent story, and said as well the Panthers lost about 20 Million instead of the 9 Million associated with the Forbes story.

If this lockout goes longer than one season, look for the Panthers to be sold or folded.

For Panthers losing $20 million would mean that even if players
were playing for free (I think Panthers' payroll were little higher),
Panthers wouldn't make any money, almost.

So that would mean that they really don't have any revenues?
(I know that almost any time you wanted to go to Panthers' game
you got a free ticket)

 

[THEPROPHET]

There's those 6 teams, but there are 14 more who claim losses on the season and 30 of them want to make more money.


Although I can't see 30 NHL owners wanting a lockout. I'm interested in seeing what the vote is for a lockout. I'm assuming they need 24 for it to be a go.

if i remember corectly there was no vote to lock out the players. Gary bettman
has sole dissision making power in regards to the new CBA that was given to him
in his last contract extention by the owners