Sportsnet: Two companies proposed to buy the NHL in yesterday's meeting

Status
Not open for further replies.

slosharksfan*

Registered User
Dec 30, 2003
417
0
Chico
why dont the owners set up there own company and give out 30 shares of stock, then the owners could become employees and get paid on a preformence bias, like revanue for a aparticuller team goes up, that "employee" gets a bonis
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Trail balloon to show the PA there are other options other than impasse and implementation.
 

Jarqui

Registered User
Jul 8, 2003
1,966
83
Visit site
In the face of touble with the NHLPA, it apparently isn't an entirely silly notion:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/columns/maclean/
It gets worse for the NHLPA. As Fort points out, "The NHL could form a syndicated league like Major League Soccer and centralize hiring, and negate the chances that the NHLPA would ever have a role into the future."

In Paul Weiler's book, Leveling the Playing Field, he addresses the formation of the MLS. The league organizers created a salary cap on total team payroll but also capped the maximum amount that could be paid to a single player. A single MLS corporate entity would own and operate all the teams, with investors owning shares.

Robert Kraft, owner of the NFL's Patriots, could not live with that idea, so they then created a special status, "investor operator." In the end the legal constitution of the MLS makes the league the formal "employer" of all the players.


EDIT: Interesting that their offer is very close to the average that Forbes has been routinely off by = 38%

I also don't know any reason why the league couldn't restructure with it's existing ownership into a big corporation that owns all the teams with each owner getting shares proportionate to the revenues they bring in (or some formula like that) and for those who don't want to stay, they buy them out.

$3 billion is only about 1.5% of the total owners net worth.

OTH, if they whip Goodenow, the value of their franchises will zoom back up if the revenue damage isn't too severe. (which is naturally what this fight is really about)
 
Last edited:

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,813
1,464
Ottawa
Its interesting that there are non-currrent NHL owners with $3Bil to invest in pro hockey if they had the opportunity. If there was a void to fill. If the current owners left a market void, there would be replacement owners with a lot of money.

I guess it could be a fall back plan for the owners, if contraction is becoming imminent, there is an outside source where they can get the money for it. And then get out of the business. Cant imagine they are too crazy about that plan. Something else for them to fend off perhaps.
 

rwilson99

Registered User
thinkwild said:
Its interesting that there are non-currrent NHL owners with $3Bil to invest in pro hockey if they had the opportunity. If there was a void to fill. If the current owners left a market void, there would be replacement owners with a lot of money.
.

There is $3B on the table. In a league with cost certainty, an individual salary cap and absolutley no bidding wars between teams to drive up salaries.
 

dakota

Registered User
May 18, 2002
1,314
0
Ottawa
Visit site
rwilson99 said:
There is $3B on the table. In a league with cost certainty, an individual salary cap and absolutley no bidding wars between teams to drive up salaries.

this sounds more like the way it should be run...
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
cleduc said:
I also don't know any reason why the league couldn't restructure with it's existing ownership into a big corporation that owns all the teams with each owner getting shares proportionate to the revenues they bring in (or some formula like that) and for those who don't want to stay, they buy them out.
How about antitrust law?
 

CrAzYNiNe

who could have predicted?
Jun 5, 2003
11,748
2,889
Montreal
ok smart guys, answer this question,

What if this actually happens, does it help, hurt? What can we expect about salaries. Helps or hurt small market teams, canadian teams and southern teams. If they buy all the teams, does that mean individual owners are gone? Does the NHL exist after that?
 

Injektilo

Registered User
Feb 3, 2005
2,516
0
Taiwan
what the hell? I can't see all 30 teams agreeing to sell.... obviously some would get more than others, but still....


that averages out to 116million per team, right? did I do that math right?


jesus, this just took a bizzare turn...
 

Injektilo

Registered User
Feb 3, 2005
2,516
0
Taiwan
This article from The Globe and Mail has more information

"Rogers Sportsnet reports interest in the proposal was low at the NHL governors' meeting and that one source described the presentation as "not appropriate."


Sounds like it's not something we have to worry about too much... still... whoah.
 

DaveyCrockett

Registered User
Dec 8, 2003
1,142
0
Toronto
Visit site
craig1 said:
Explain why you see that happening.
If all the franchises are owned by one group, unprofitable franchises can easily be contracted. Its just a thought but some franchises are barely worth the trouble financially and since there would only be one owner, it would be easy to contract a couple.
 

Epsilon

#basta
Oct 26, 2002
48,464
369
South Cackalacky
I'd be surprised if the US government let such a deal go through. Assuming that all the owners would even agree to it, which is pretty unlikely. Why would the Ontario Teacher's Pension Fund sell the Leafs? Or Mike Illitch sell the Red Wings?
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
DaveyCrockett said:
If all the franchises are owned by one group, unprofitable franchises can easily be contracted. Its just a thought but some franchises are barely worth the trouble financially and since there would only be one owner, it would be easy to contract a couple.

All of the franchise are owned by one group then they can pay lower wages so most if not all of the teams are viable. Knocking $5m of each teams budget generates $150m more for the owner. Why set the bar on salaries any higher than you need to. Run the weaker teams at loss but use them as an excuse to keep over all wages down. The weaker teams might lose a combined $50m, more than made up for by the $150m extra.
 

Kestrel

Registered User
Jan 30, 2005
5,814
129
It could definitely be interesting. A possible scenario would be the company hiring 30 GM's, giving each team an equal player budger, say $35 million each, and offering the GM performance based incentives in order to promote a tight competitive league. I'm not sure if I'd be for, or against this as a fan. It could turn out bad, but it could potentially be very good too. Kinda makes the league a little more impersonal though, and takes away some team identity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->