Why doesn't the NHLPA want to look at the NHL's books?

[copperandblue]

No one has said that the players should be allowed to split the purchase price.

Really?

The $100 million - if that is what it was - is hockey revenue earned over the past ten years...

Sounds like Tom suggested just that in reference to the rumoured 100 mil purchase price - 50% stake in the Vancouver Canucks.

Actually it could be a pretty sweet deal from a players perspective.

Say the league makes 2.1 billion for the year,

Team A then decides to sell at 150 mil, the selling owner walks away from the game with 150 mil in his pocket where as,

The league NOW ends up recording revenue at 2.25 Billion (even though 150 mil of that is actually out of the league completely at this point).

Further to that, the (for example) 58% revenue cap of 1.22 billion actually climbs to 1.30 Billion....again even though the difference is not actually in the league/franchises.....

So the players are now earning an extra $80 mil in cap room even though the revenue that caused the extra cash is sitting in Aruba drinking cocktails on a beach...

Not only do the players cash in but the new owner, who purchased the team based on league revenue's that are establishing the payroll cap and his own team's revenue that is operating under that cap potentially gets penalized an extra $2.6 mil on his new teams payroll because that is what the individual team cap went up by.

I wonder what effect that would have for overall franchise values, when the mere sale/purchase of a team can throw the league as a whole into the red? There probably wouldn't be too many people banging on the NHL doors looking for franchises.....

Or what happens when a team is valued at - say 108 mil - by Forbes (everyones new favourite source of concrete material) such as the Anaheim Mighty Ducks and yet the best offer to date for the franchise is 50 mil? Do the players give back the 30 mil that was lost on the original expansion fee or do they give back 58 mil that is less than the current estimated value? Do they give back anything at all?

How about Ottawa's sale, their estimated value was much more than their ultimate sale value, do the players give back in that case? Same with Buffalo?

Actually as far as that goes, how about Vancouver? If the100 mil is accurate AND it accounts for half of GM place then at 100 mil are the players going to susidize the loss for McCaw? He purchased the Canucks for 56 mil, GM place for 160 mil so on his initial capital investment he just lost $8 mil in the deal.

Or finally, if this is about how much money the owners in the game are making, which as far as I can tell it is, and an owner who sold a team is out of the game but the owner who bought the team is now in the game, maybe the monies dropped by the new owner should count against the league revenues because he is now 100 mil lighter in his own pockets, afterall he is now an NHL owner? Or maybe the the team should record losses until the time comes that he recoups his purchase price through team profits?

Yeah I know it's a rediculous thought..... sort of like monies from selling a team counting for league revenues.....

 

[SENSible1*]

Couldn't help but notice the verbose one didn't have an answer for this post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
The NHL is asking for something that cannot be accurately done. That is a different thing than it has never been done or can't be done inaccurately. Levitt did it based on the NBA model. That doesn't mean "designated basketball revenues" have anything whatsoever to do with real basketball revenues. It is a fake number driven by a formula negotiated by the NBA and the NBAPA.


HMMM...now where have I seen this concept before?


Quote:
The NHLPA knows that it can't isolate real hockey revenues and it doesn't want to try. It certainly doesn't want anything to do with an arbitrary formula invented by the NBA or by anyone else. There is no need to negotiate hockey revenues. The owners of each team knows exactly what they are. The players don't really care.

In other words, the NHL thinks NBA players got suckered and they aren't interested in being chumps. The NBA superstars bailed out on the rank and file and the rank and file in the NBA are a dime a dozen.

Why do basketball players get such a tiny share of "designated" revenues? If they had the NHL system maybe they would be getting 75% of the "designated" revenues. Either way "designated" revenues has nothing to do with reality for all 30 businesses in either sport. It is artificial. It is called "designated" because it is fake.

Tom


Perfect, we are finally down to the real heart of the matter.

Funny that you've been prattling on about it being a matter of the players inability to trust Bettman and the owners and their numbers as the major impediments to getting a deal done.

Now by your own admission the numbers don't matter and therefore neither does trust.

The real issue is one of simple greed and the players wanting to hold onto the bigger peice of the pie they have carved out over the last 10 years.

Thanks for spelling the Unions position out so clearly, it's all about maintaing the 75%.

Quote:
The NBA superstars bailed out on the rank and file and the rank and file in the NBA are a dime a dozen.



Here is something else for you to ponder. The NHL superstar to rank and file ratio is virtually the same as the NBA's with the rank and file being just as replaceable.

Also, factoring in the disproportionate European representation amoungst top line stars and Canadian representation amoungst the rank and file, it isn't too difficult to imagine those same Europeans not being too concerned with how their actions affect the rank and file once push comes to shove and real money is being offered to test their allegiance to the "no cap" principle.

I wonder why.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Couldn't help but notice the verbose one didn't have an answer for this post.

Internet etiquette says I get to choose what I respond to and what I don't. My post was pretty clear and I didn't think I needed to respond, but if you insist.

Thanks for spelling the Unions position out so clearly, it's all about maintaing the 75%.

Well, why not? What number should it be? Nobody can agree with what revenues really are and nobody can really say what percentage belongs to the players. If the owners freely give 75% of the revenues, I'd guess either that is a fair split for hockey or the owners have other revenues that aren't "designated" by the formula.

Here is something else for you to ponder. The NHL superstar to rank and file ratio is virtually the same as the NBA's with the rank and file being just as replaceable.

Crap. The NBA superstar can play nearly the entire game and has a much, much larger impact on a basketball game than an NHL superstar. The bottom half of an NHL roster plays a third of the minutes. The bottom half of an NBA roster hardly plays. The NCAA poops out literally hundreds of guys a year who are capable of being an NBA benchwarmer. The NCAA and Major Junior hockey doesn't graduate 30 guys a year who can win any NHL job.

In the NBA lockout, it was the stars who broke ranks and threatened to make a separate deal with the owners. The NBA CBA that resulted takes care of the top players and the cap squeezes the middle and lower classes. In the NHL lockout, the richest players are the ones leading the fight.

Tom

 

[quat]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the PA had looked at the books but had to sign a non-disclosure agreement to not say anything publically about it, including the fact that they had even looked at them.

After all, that's Bettman's way. Lie about what you can. Use half-truths and distortions to mislead the public. He's a lawyer remember and he's doing his damndest to play the stereotypical lawyer.

Heyyyy.... I thought that was your job !

 

[dawgbone]

The NCAA poops out literally hundreds of guys a year who are capable of being an NBA benchwarmer. The NCAA and Major Junior hockey doesn't graduate 30 guys a year who can win any NHL job.

Do you really beleive that? The NBA draft consists of 2 whole rounds... hundreds of players can be pooped out to sit on the bench, but that isn't the point of the draft is it?

The NHL draft can probably poop out hundreds of guys too, as long as you don't care if they play. I mean any pick could be used as pressbox fodder if any team wanted to.

 

[quat]

what losses ? i thought a salary cap was the magic profit cure ?

dr

I think this is something you really struggle with. Tying salary to revenue won't guarantee anything if you have a crappy team through missmanagment or are in a crappy hockey market. I have trouble understanding why you would want to invent such a lame theory... and if you've read it posted by someone else, then you should have enough sense to ignore it. If Carolina can't break even or turn a profit in a system that ties salary to revenue, then they shouldn't have a team. The idea is to make the financial playing field more level, so that the League is better to watch, bringing more fans to games, creating more interest and ultimately more money so everyone benifits. Hardly rocket science.

 

[Pepper]

Source or not, it is almost common knowledge.

No it's not, show us some evidence (links etc).

I really don't understand your blind pro-NHLPA stand here, you bought the Forbes numbers without a second though despite them admitting that they haven't even seen the books & Forbes being WAY off about the franchise values in the last 2-5 years.

 

[thinkwild]

I think this is something you really struggle with. Tying salary to revenue won't guarantee anything if you have a crappy team through missmanagment or are in a crappy hockey market. I have trouble understanding why you would want to invent such a lame theory... and if you've read it posted by someone else, then you should have enough sense to ignore it. If Carolina can't break even or turn a profit in a system that ties salary to revenue, then they shouldn't have a team. The idea is to make the financial playing field more level, so that the League is better to watch, bringing more fans to games, creating more interest and ultimately more money so everyone benifits. Hardly rocket science.

If they have financial parity, and a team is sucking, their fans arent likely to come to the games because, oh well, at least there is financial parity. Dont be ridiculous. Winning brings attendance. If a team like Dallas spends on all sorts of free agents, but it doesnt help them win, they have to lower prices to draw fans regardless of how much more they are spending than everyone else.

Pittsburgh-Carolina games should always sell-out? They have financial parity?


Whats the difference between:
-Parity
-Competitive balance
-financial parity

 

[quat]

If they have financial parity, and a team is sucking, their fans arent likely to come to the games because, oh well, at least there is financial parity. Dont be ridiculous. Winning brings attendance. If a team like Dallas spends on all sorts of free agents, but it doesnt help them win, they have to lower prices to draw fans regardless of how much more they are spending than everyone else.

Pittsburgh-Carolina games should always sell-out? They have financial parity?


Whats the difference between:
-Parity
-Competitive balance
-financial parity

Where exactly do you get this from? You are simply writing without the courtesy of even trying to understand what someone has posted. My god man, try a little harder.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

The idea is to make the financial playing field more level, so that the League is better to watch, bringing more fans to games, creating more interest and ultimately more money so everyone benifits. Hardly rocket science.

Thinkwild was challenging this premise and correctly so. There is absolutely no evidence to support it and plenty of evidence the other way.

The only thing that brings more fans to the local hockey rink or creates more interest in the team and ultimately more money for the team is winning. If a team wins, the fans don't care about payroll. If it is high because they have really good players, the fans are glad to pay them. If it is low because the team is winning despite still being very young, the low payroll is a badge of honour for the fan, at least until the players grow up and get more money. At that point the fans are glad to pay them.

Winning makes fans happy.

Fans are disgusted by losing and they bail. If the team is a high payroll loser like Washington or New York was, the fans are disgusted with having to pay the underachievers wherever someone has been stupid enough to try to buy a winner. If the team is a low payroll loser in a big market like Boston or Chicago, the fans refuse to buy tickets because the owner is too cheap to try to buy a winner even though you can't buy a winner in the NHL. If the low payroll loser in a small market, the fans blame the CBA because the teams whine and complain that they can't afford to try to buy a winner even though you can't buy a winner in the NHL. Only the excuse is different. The result is the same.

Losing pisses off the fans. Changing the CBA will not change the number of winners. A financial playing field has nothing to do with whether fans come out.

Nobody buys a ticket because the team has a high payroll or decides not to go to a game because the home side is icing a $30 million team. In fact, the best draws for lousy teams are the best teams and the Rangers. Fans in cities with small payroll teams turn out to see the big money teams.

Detroit is Darth Vader to Nashville's Luke Skywalker. And since Nashville can beat Detroit on any given night, Luke and the force can win. Why doesn't that sell? It does sell. The problem in a place like Nashville is when Florida comes to town. Or Buffalo. Or any other faceless team.

How does breaking up the Red Wings get more people to the gate? How does making the Rangers as nondescript as the Hurricane drive NHL attendance up?

Tom

 

[codswallop]

Thinkwild was challenging this premise and correctly so. There is absolutely no evidence to support it and plenty of evidence the other way.

The only thing that brings more fans to the local hockey rink or creates more interest in the team and ultimately more money for the team is winning. If a team wins, the fans don't care about payroll. If it is high because they have really good players, the fans are glad to pay them. If it is low because the team is winning despite still being very young, the low payroll is a badge of honour for the fan, at least until the players grow up and get more money. At that point the fans are glad to pay them.

Winning makes fans happy.

Fans are disgusted by losing and they bail. If the team is a high payroll loser like Washington or New York was, the fans are disgusted with having to pay the underachievers wherever someone has been stupid enough to try to buy a winner. If the team is a low payroll loser in a big market like Boston or Chicago, the fans refuse to buy tickets because the owner is too cheap to try to buy a winner even though you can't buy a winner in the NHL. If the low payroll loser in a small market, the fans blame the CBA because the teams whine and complain that they can't afford to try to buy a winner even though you can't buy a winner in the NHL. Only the excuse is different. The result is the same.

Losing pisses off the fans. Changing the CBA will not change the number of winners. A financial playing field has nothing to do with whether fans come out.

Nobody buys a ticket because the team has a high payroll or decides not to go to a game because the home side is icing a $30 million team. In fact, the best draws for lousy teams are the best teams and the Rangers. Fans in cities with small payroll teams turn out to see the big money teams.

Detroit is Darth Vader to Nashville's Luke Skywalker. And since Nashville can beat Detroit on any given night, Luke and the force can win. Why doesn't that sell? It does sell. The problem in a place like Nashville is when Florida comes to town. Or Buffalo. Or any other faceless team.

How does breaking up the Red Wings get more people to the gate? How does making the Rangers as nondescript as the Hurricane drive NHL attendance up?

Tom

In some ways you get it, and in some ways you don't get it (or at least that's the perception).

It's not a linear progression, very few circumstances in this arena play out that way. It would be wonderful if they did, I would be extremely happy if that were the case. It would make my life much easier. But I've accepted the uncertanties that happen in relation to business practices such as these.

And no, I won't elaborate on that last paragraph. After many months of discussion on basically the same issues, the thoughts should be fairly clear. It's not a revelation to say that the views/opinions of some people here carry little weight with certain others, why extent it?

The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. We've all heard that, ad nauseum. At some point, that has to sink in.

 

[quat]

Here Tom and Thinkwild :

I think this is something you really struggle with. Tying salary to revenue won't guarantee anything if you have a crappy team through missmanagment or are in a crappy hockey market. I have trouble understanding why you would want to invent such a lame theory... and if you've read it posted by someone else, then you should have enough sense to ignore it. If Carolina can't break even or turn a profit in a system that ties salary to revenue, then they shouldn't have a team. The idea is to make the financial playing field more level, so that the League is better to watch, bringing more fans to games, creating more interest and ultimately more money so everyone benifits. Hardly rocket science.

How you are capable of finding this:

If they have financial parity, and a team is sucking, their fans arent likely to come to the games because, oh well, at least there is financial parity.

from what I posted above, is really a mystery.

Winning is still obviously what will draw in the fans, and it's quite incredible that you guys think that would be impossible for any stretch of time with all payrolls being equal.

You're more than welcome to have your opinion, and I certainly don't pretend to know exactly how things are going to play out.

Somehow you feel you've provided convincing proof that the NHL will not function well with a system that won't allow a small group of teams to outspend their rivals. I simply don't agree with your logic on this.

My post was about how owners aren't guaranteed profits just because they own teams. If they don't win, ie: their management, coaching or players suck, they won't generate enough money to bring in the fans. So simply, not winning means no money for owners.

HOW is this any different from what you guys are going on about?

Tom, your position about keeping the league with 30 teams has been well documented... that is to say, you would like to see teams folded. How your opinion is supposed to carry any weight in a discussion about how to keep a 30 team league healthy is again a mystery. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't have that opinion, but I don't see how it really relates.

If you are completely against wearing a motorcycle helmet, why bother arguing about the design?

 

[FlyersFan10*]

Why doesn't the NHLPA want to look at the NHL's books? Very simple. Accounting isn't a science, it's an art. Bill Daly even said that on ESPN radio. When Daly stated that it looks better for the New York Rangers and voila, they're losing, well guess what, something just doesn't add up. Then you factor in the Forbes report and then finally, the laughable six proposals the owners tabled, then you can see why the NHLPA will never look at the books. The owners will cook and doctor the books in their favour. We'll never, never, never get an honest answer from an owner with regards to whether teams are making or losing money. I mean, here in Ottawa, you have ownership claiming they're losing less money than what they are paying out. Yet you have the team signing Alfredsson to that rediculous contract and they have Redden signed to a rediculous contract as well. Don't kid yourself, these teams are making money. However, because they aren't making money as projected, the owners are claiming they're losing.

 

[codswallop]

Why doesn't the NHLPA want to look at the NHL's books? Very simple. Accounting isn't a science, it's an art. Bill Daly even said that on ESPN radio. When Daly stated that it looks better for the New York Rangers and voila, they're losing, well guess what, something just doesn't add up. Then you factor in the Forbes report and then finally, the laughable six proposals the owners tabled, then you can see why the NHLPA will never look at the books. The owners will cook and doctor the books in their favour. We'll never, never, never get an honest answer from an owner with regards to whether teams are making or losing money. I mean, here in Ottawa, you have ownership claiming they're losing less money than what they are paying out. Yet you have the team signing Alfredsson to that rediculous contract and they have Redden signed to a rediculous contract as well. Don't kid yourself, these teams are making money. However, because they aren't making money as projected, the owners are claiming they're losing.

I've been in the field of "numbers" for a while now, economic applications. My oldest brother has been involved in the field of industrial/corporate accounting for the last twenty years. We are constantly at odds; economists and accountants (natural enemies).

In this "battle", in our professional opinion, both of us believe that an expediant agreement between the two sides would be beneficial to all the parites involved (something all of us are hoping for, on some level at least). My brother's profession and my own my may not inherently agree with each other on many levels but we are, at the very least, honest in our opinions (and at this stage of our careers, we do our best to present the facts as they are presented to us).

Asymmetrical information, there's little we can do on the outside. Far too many gaps to believe we have the whole story. Please think about it.

 

[gary69]

My post was about how owners aren't guaranteed profits just because they own teams. If they don't win, ie: their management, coaching or players suck, they won't generate enough money to bring in the fans. So simply, not winning means no money for owners.

Well, if and when teams aren't winning under the cap system (and this will happen to at least 14 teams, who don't make the playoffs), and thus by your word they bring in less money for the owners, what do you want/expect the owners do then?

Common sense would think, that they would do a BUDGET that is in line with their financial situation and pay players' salaries accordingly. But wait, if they haven't been able to this under the old cba, why would they suddenly be able to do that now? (Assuming they want to?)

I would still think that if an owner/GM is not capable or willing to do a proper budget each and every year, no matter what system is in use, it doesn't bail him out.

 

[gary69]

The only thing that brings more fans to the local hockey rink or creates more interest in the team and ultimately more money for the team is winning. If a team wins, the fans don't care about payroll.

Losing pisses off the fans. Changing the CBA will not change the number of winners. A financial playing field has nothing to do with whether fans come out.

Tom

You might be forgetting, what some of these pro-cap people (not me) want or at the very least are implying to want. They want every team every year to win enough to have a chance of making the playoffs. That means that they want all the teams to be just a couple of wins/losses away of making/missing the playoffs, i.e. that worst teams finish with ~75 points and best teams ~85 points.

So while the number of wins in itself isn't increasing, they want to to spread it out more evenly. Thus they believe more teams will be winners or almost winners in the regular season.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

You might be forgetting, what some of these pro-cap people want or at the very least are implying to want. They want every team every year to win enough to have a chance of making the playoffs. That means that they want all the teams to be just a couple of wins/losses away of making/missing the playoffs, i.e. that worst teams finish with ~75 points and best teams ~85 points.

So while the number of wins in itself isn't increasing, they want to to spread it out more evenly. Thus they believe more teams will be winners or almost winners in the regular season.

in my opinion if each team has a similar chance to win, it means each team has a smilar chance to lose.

how would you like to build a team like OTT only to have no more of a chance than a team who builds like CHI and WSH.

DR

 

[SENSible1*]

in my opinion if each team has a similar chance to win, it means each team has a smilar chance to lose.

how would you like to build a team like OTT only to have no more of a chance than a team who builds like CHI and WSH.

DR

Cost certainty doesn't mean that smart organizations don't get rewarded. Don't believe me, ask the Patriots.

 

[Pepper]

Good management is still essential, whether there's a salary cap or not.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Cost certainty doesn't mean that smart organizations don't get rewarded. Don't believe me, ask the Patriots.

i dont think the price being paid is worth what it will take to win cost certainty.

i dont care if NYR, STL, CHI and BOS cant compete with OTT, CGY, SJS and VAN and I am not happy to kill hockey to help them be better and richer.

dr

 

[quat]

Well, if and when teams aren't winning under the cap system (and this will happen to at least 14 teams, who don't make the playoffs), and thus by your word they bring in less money for the owners, what do you want/expect the owners do then?

Common sense would think, that they would do a BUDGET that is in line with their financial situation and pay players' salaries accordingly. But wait, if they haven't been able to this under the old cba, why would they suddenly be able to do that now? (Assuming they want to?)

I would still think that if an owner/GM is not capable or willing to do a proper budget each and every year, no matter what system is in use, it doesn't bail him out.

I don't agree that a team that doesn't make the playoffs won't attract fans. It really depends on what part of the cycle the team is in. Not every team will contend each year, but that doesn't mean the team can't be fun to follow. It's if they can't get out of the rebuilding stage, or keep their developing players that matters.

 

[quat]

in my opinion if each team has a similar chance to win, it means each team has a smilar chance to lose.

how would you like to build a team like OTT only to have no more of a chance than a team who builds like CHI and WSH.

DR

My my my. You guys are being so obtuse! Do you have any idea of how irrational it is to believe what you are suggesting will happen? You set an equal limit to how much all teams may spend on their rosters and suddenly every single team is exactly the same in ability?

I ask: Do all people who drive the same kind of car all drive in exactly the same manner?

This isn't even theoretically possible never mind likely.

 

[tantalum]

in my opinion if each team has a similar chance to win, it means each team has a smilar chance to lose.

how would you like to build a team like OTT only to have no more of a chance than a team who builds like CHI and WSH.

DR

Every team has a similar chance to build and be successful. That doesn't mean that all will be successful and we'll see a bunch of 0.500 hockey teams. It means taht management, drafting, smart trades, chemistry etc. comes to the forefront. You will still have teams exceptional at this year after year (New Jersey, Ottawa, Colorado most likely) and teams that have terrible management (ChicagO etc.) stinking up the place. There is absolutely NO evidence that all teams become equal. There will still be teams that are dominant year after year and teams that stink year after year.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Every team has a similar chance to build and be successful. That doesn't mean that all will be successful and we'll see a bunch of 0.500 hockey teams. It means taht management, drafting, smart trades, chemistry etc. comes to the forefront. You will still have teams exceptional at this year after year (New Jersey, Ottawa, Colorado most likely) and teams that have terrible management (ChicagO etc.) stinking up the place. There is absolutely NO evidence that all teams become equal. There will still be teams that are dominant year after year and teams that stink year after year.

well my point remains:

i dont think the price being paid is worth what it will take to win cost certainty.

i dont care if NYR, STL, CHI and BOS cant compete with OTT, CGY, SJS and VAN and I am not happy to kill hockey to help them be better and richer.

dr

 

[tantalum]

well my point remains:

i dont think the price being paid is worth what it will take to win cost certainty.

i dont care if NYR, STL, CHI and BOS cant compete with OTT, CGY, SJS and VAN and I am not happy to kill hockey to help them be better and richer.

dr

So your point essentially isn't a point at all. Atleast not yet. You don't know if this is going to kill hockey. That can't be said for quite some time yet.