Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

DuckNinja

Another Lockout?

Recommended Posts

i think with this new proposal the odds got better that there is not gonna be a lockout

Odds are better but both parties are still far apart on their demands. This could be a building block.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Odds are better but both parties are still far apart on their demands. This could be a building block.

i agree still lots gotta happen but im hopeful now

bring up the Lego blocks smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on what I've read, revenue split isn't the issue, it's player salaries: rollbacks, contract lengths and terms... unless there's news there, don't expect much to happen in terms of a new deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a disgrace. I know a lot is at stake for the owners and the players but what about the fans? We're left in the cold for the 2nd time in 7 years. They should figure this out asap and stop behaving like children. Couldn't they start negotiating earlier? Everybody knew the CBA would expire after 5 years. Why not start negotiating at the start of the season? Or is that illegal or something? Or is it possible to work out a deal for one season which might not be the best but that at least would give you time to negotiate another while hockey is being played.

To me this is a lack of respect. You'd think they would have learned from their previous mistakes but no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully we only lose a month or so, and the major issues are ironed out for a better situation moving forward. Anything later than December is really inexcusable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some wise folks here, so help me understand this--I'd like to get a better perspective.

12 teams make money, 18 lose money http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/

In the past, the argument was franchises always appreciate, so operating losses are offset by team (asset) appreciation.

But you look at the numbers from last year, and consider that the owners of the Thrashers actually received $110 million for selling (the league charged a $60 million relocation fee to True North on top of that). That's significantly lower than the lowest valuation on the list...and how they calculate "values" of money losing teams that can't relocate is already challenging for me to figure.

Since costs continue to increase, and the economy continues to be problematic, it doesn't seem like that appreciating franchise argument would be convincing--and I don't know why the businesses that make money would voluntarily devalue their businesses by forking over cash to franchises they probably think shouldn't exist. If the NHL had just those 12 teams, the resulting surplus of players would drop salaries instantly (even though their rights fees would also drop).

The writers on THN, SI, etc. never bring this up, and I'd like to hear how someone from the players' perspective would respond. My owning a team is about as likely as my having a guaranteed player contract, but if I owned one of the 18 teams, why would I operate a depreciating loss-making business until I could reorganize it to stop the losses?

As a bonus, a great answer to that question would probably settle the negotiations instantly!

Thanks for any ideas...it looks like that might be the extent of my hockey thinking for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some wise folks here, so help me understand this--I'd like to get a better perspective.

12 teams make money, 18 lose money http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/

In the past, the argument was franchises always appreciate, so operating losses are offset by team (asset) appreciation.

But you look at the numbers from last year, and consider that the owners of the Thrashers actually received $110 million for selling (the league charged a $60 million relocation fee to True North on top of that). That's significantly lower than the lowest valuation on the list...and how they calculate "values" of money losing teams that can't relocate is already challenging for me to figure.

Since costs continue to increase, and the economy continues to be problematic, it doesn't seem like that appreciating franchise argument would be convincing--and I don't know why the businesses that make money would voluntarily devalue their businesses by forking over cash to franchises they probably think shouldn't exist. If the NHL had just those 12 teams, the resulting surplus of players would drop salaries instantly (even though their rights fees would also drop).

The writers on THN, SI, etc. never bring this up, and I'd like to hear how someone from the players' perspective would respond. My owning a team is about as likely as my having a guaranteed player contract, but if I owned one of the 18 teams, why would I operate a depreciating loss-making business until I could reorganize it to stop the losses?

As a bonus, a great answer to that question would probably settle the negotiations instantly!

Thanks for any ideas...it looks like that might be the extent of my hockey thinking for a while.

Sorry, I can't give you a proper answer, but just talking out of my rear I'd say that maybe some owners don't buy an NHL franchise because they see it as a lucrative venture. Maybe some are rich, rich men that are fulfilling a dream to own a hockey team. The fact that the team loses money each year might be offset by the fact that the franchise typically appreciates in value over time. The owner can front the immediate losses knowing that if he ever sells the team he will get his money back and then some. These aren't accurate numbers, but if Samueli has eaten $50M in losses since buying the team, he knows he can sell the team and cash in on the $100M that the team has appreciated to recoup his losses. And team that benefit from revenue sharing are even better off. There's also the hope that if the team goes on a decent run of success, and sees some consecutive playoff runs like we did, the team might actually see some profit for a while.

So my guess is it's a combo of a billionaire who just wants to own an NHL/sports franchise, and the belief that they can build a winner.

As far as other teams not approving sharing of their profits, I'd say they don't have much choice. NO team will ever sniff at the kind of profits that Toronto makes, and after Montreal there is a pretty big drop-off among the top earning teams. They will always have to understand that they will have to be limited in some way for the sake of parity. And the current 12 teams that make profit are just a current snapshot. Over the past some of those teams have been on the losing end, and in the future they might be there again. I don't think it's wise to assume that all teams will remain on the right or wrong side of profits over the long term.

And just to be long-winded :P , I'd say if we cut the league down to only the profitable teams and redistribute the talent pool, we'd end up with much deeper, more talented teams, making for a better product. The problem I have is, those teams are already selling out and doing well, how much room is there to improve the teams that are already successful? The way to improve the league is by capturing new fans and expanding the TV market. You don't accomplish this without expanding into new markets and weathering some growing pain type losses. As far as this affecting the players' salaries, I'd agree with you, however a league made up of 12 teams might lose the need for a salary cap, or at the least they might be OK with letting the cap raise significantly (which means more money for players).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was curious about the other major sports leagues. Only 2 NFL teams lose money; only 3 MLB teams. Half (!) of the NBA teams lose money.

I knew there'd be insight for me here, and the point that the players would think of team ownership as a rich man's hobby that pays off based on appreciation since team purchase was key for me.

I think that's exactly how many players think; just as some of them are happy to "make money playing the game they love."

I'm concerned that more owners might be thinking of how much more their net worth will slide if their teams aren't restored to profitability...and if it takes a year to do it, and appreciation since team purchase is the only real benefit of team ownership...

Would you try to sell the house with the bad foundation now or fix the foundation and sell a year or two down the line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not as convinced that the owners couldn't operate under the current CBA until a new one is approved. Isn't a work stoppage worst than playing under the current agreement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not as convinced that the owners couldn't operate under the current CBA until a new one is approved. Isn't a work stoppage worst than playing under the current agreement?

The problem is that other players will still look to get massive paydays in the meantime, and some owners will be in a bad spot trying to sign their top talent while a new CBA is being worked on, especially without having a hard deadline to look towards. It puts them in a bad spot, and those contracts would need to honored even after the new CBA might add some contract limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not as convinced that the owners couldn't operate under the current CBA until a new one is approved. Isn't a work stoppage worse than playing under the current agreement?

This is the unfortunate part of the NHLPA's approach of taking from the profitable teams to give to the unprofitable.

The current CBA is a successful model for the ~12 profitable teams, but all else being equal it's undesirable for the ~18 unprofitable teams.

So the NHLPA started with 12 teams more likely to support the essence of the current CBA...and proposed that these same teams should reduce their profits by transferring cash to the other teams.

The idea, apparently, was that 18 billionaires would be happy to seize a few more millions from the other 12, and the problem is solved. A funny thing about doing this...the more profits are taxed, the more businesses tend to spend their cash before it becomes a year-end profit...a concept billionaire businessmen know intimately.

Example? Lakers team valuation in Forbes 1/2012...$900 Million.

Lakers operating income? Wait for it...

$24.3 Million.

In a multi-year CBA you can bet those profits disappear like magic if they're grabbed anyway.

Perhaps the NHL could propose the the Sidney Crosbys of the world "revenue share" their salary+endorsement cash with the lower paid players to offset new CBA decreases in other players' salaries. Heck, make it mandatory and he can make those payments pre-tax as business expenses...and although he has paid quite a price (his health for the rest of his life?) Sid sure runs a profitable business...even if (heaven forbid) he never skates again! Get those other 699 players to grab that cash!

A lockout is guaranteed under this CBA because playing would increase the losses, and thus increase the debts, of a majority of teams. Higher debt=lower net team sale price after debt assumption. Stupid owners...stupid players...stupid fans (i.e. me)...it's irrelevant how we got here. We're here now.

No matter the details, I have no NHL to watch and the owners and players will still have plenty cash whatever year this gets done...hating the 'rich' until that day would leave me no one connected with the NHL to like.

I wish they wouldn't tempt the fans to do exactly that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the unfortunate part of the NHLPA's approach of taking from the profitable teams to give to the unprofitable.

The current CBA is a successful model for the ~12 profitable teams, but all else being equal it's undesirable for the ~18 unprofitable teams.

So the NHLPA started with 12 teams more likely to support the essence of the current CBA...and proposed that these same teams should reduce their profits by transferring cash to the other teams.

The idea, apparently, was that 18 billionaires would be happy to seize a few more millions from the other 12, and the problem is solved. A funny thing about doing this...the more profits are taxed, the more businesses tend to spend their cash before it becomes a year-end profit...a concept billionaire businessmen know intimately.

Example? Lakers team valuation in Forbes 1/2012...$900 Million.

Lakers operating income? Wait for it...

$24.3 Million.

In a multi-year CBA you can bet those profits disappear like magic if they're grabbed anyway.

Perhaps the NHL could propose the the Sidney Crosbys of the world "revenue share" their salary+endorsement cash with the lower paid players to offset new CBA decreases in other players' salaries. Heck, make it mandatory and he can make those payments pre-tax as business expenses...and although he has paid quite a price (his health for the rest of his life?) Sid sure runs a profitable business...even if (heaven forbid) he never skates again! Get those other 699 players to grab that cash!

A lockout is guaranteed under this CBA because playing would increase the losses, and thus increase the debts, of a majority of teams. Higher debt=lower net team sale price after debt assumption. Stupid owners...stupid players...stupid fans (i.e. me)...it's irrelevant how we got here. We're here now.

No matter the details, I have no NHL to watch and the owners and players will still have plenty cash whatever year this gets done...hating the 'rich' until that day would leave me no one connected with the NHL to like.

I wish they wouldn't tempt the fans to do exactly that.

I can somewhat see your point. As far as the Laker reference is that how much the team spends it seems too low for player salaries. I don't see how NBA player's salaries are much less than NHL players. I know the small market teams will be running at a lost because if they were profitable we wouldn't even be having a CBA discussion. Even if a team doesn't play it means the owner(s) are still responsible for paying whatever agency or city for booking the stadium for the night. It seems like the worst case scenario were owners have to pay even when there isn't a game going on. Are the owners losing more money if a game is played than not? As far as player contract negotiations go I would propose a moratorium after September 15 so that teams don't try to get 10 year contracts when they know full well that there could be a limit to contracts.

As Zther once's mentioned that he isn't a mathematician, neither am I. The organization's accounts are hard to comprehend and it probably becomes harder to understand when owners don't release all information. I know Bettman mentioned that the owners are not capable of running a season under the current CBA but what about for two months until this gets finalized? Again, I don't have all the information for me to make a proper decision but going out and stating to the media that there won't be a season is becoming to look like neither side wants to negotiate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lakers player payroll is $99M

http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm

The REVENUE of the Lakers was $214M, $900M valuation is not the same as income.

So based on the stated number of $214M, Lakers player salary cost is 46%

Based on Forbe's evaluation on the Anaheim ducks November of last year:

Revenue: $84M

Player Salary: 54M, Player cost is 64%

As for the Extremes,

Toronto

Revenue: $193M, Player Salary: $61M, Player cost is 32%

Coyotes

Revenue: $70M, Player Salary: $52M, Player cost is 74%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the 12-disc DVD set where it goes from Game 1 of the WCF against Detroit to Game 5 against Ottowa. I think I'm going to have to watch those DVDs myself.

On a side note does anyone know how I can get the entire 2006-2007 regular season plus the first two rounds of the playoffs on DVD or any other format?

You know, after the 2003 playoffs, I asked if there was dvd available of them the next season, and unfortunately no luck. If I could get every game from the 2003 and 2007 playoffs on dvd, I would be a happy man.

As it is, Gary Bettman, and any owners who aren't working to replace him as commissioner immediately, can take a long walk off a short cliff.

edit: Didn't the players offer to take 43% for the next two seasons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The REVENUE of the Lakers was $214M, $900M valuation is not the same as income.

I appreciate this clarification...my point here was that a team with such a high valuation can still end the year with a relatively small profit. Your salary percentages are most relevant here...thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, they have now reached the point of these type negotiations which always gets me nuts. As 1 reporter said today, "it is now a game of chicken." Neither side wants to be the first to ask the other to go back to the tables, so there is an impasse.

I got an idea.......................FLIP A FRIGGIN COIN! GET YOUR A$$ES BACK TO THE TABLE! :angry:

Hey NHL, I'm at an impasse too. I haven't decided if I am going to my usual 10-12 games a year or 2-3.

Any lengthy delay of this season and you will basically help make up my mind. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, they have now reached the point of these type negotiations which always gets me nuts. As 1 reporter said today, "it is now a game of chicken." Neither side wants to be the first to ask the other to go back to the tables, so there is an impasse.

I got an idea.......................FLIP A FRIGGIN COIN! GET YOUR A$$ES BACK TO THE TABLE! :angry:

Hey NHL, I'm at an impasse too. I haven't decided if I am going to my usual 10-12 games a year or 2-3.

Any lengthy delay of this season and you will basically help make up my mind. B)

The same thing happens every time, yet fans, media, etc., continue to act as if it's suddenly going to change. I'm accused of being negative, but that is irrelevant in regards to this situation. These guys are acting predictable.

Last season, it came as no big surprise when the Ducks did not make the playoffs, after their horrible first half. By December, a playoff spot looked pretty impossible. A surprise would have been them setting NHL history and overcoming their large deficit. The chances that these 2 sides will come to an agreement on anything other than what toppings to put on their "negotiation" pizzas, are as high as the Ducks chances were of making the 2012 playoffs as of 12/20/11.

Anything else would be a Huge surprise to me. T minus 10 days, and I'd say the pre-season games are basically on the clock. If there is a lockout, expect those to begin to get cancelled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the NHLPA's side

"A concession is when you give up something you have"

Uh, like giving up operating a couple of months of money-losing Fall hockey?

Concession, here we come :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the fact there is no CBA talks going on is piddleing me off. These eh-holes only have a week left and no talks scheduled. I feel like they just don't care. So I have decided if there is a lockout (partial or full) I am going to cancel my season seats.

it's time for the fans to step in and send a message to the owners and Bettman, not to take us for granted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is based on a comment i read on TSN that stated that Bettman had wanted to start CBA talks at the START of last season however Fehr declined and said that they would only need a month to get it done. Does anybody recall this or have any articles that support it? it would shine a whole new light on Fehr if true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is based on a comment i read on TSN that stated that Bettman had wanted to start CBA talks at the START of last season however Fehr declined and said that they would only need a month to get it done. Does anybody recall this or have any articles that support it? it would shine a whole new light on Fehr if true.

I remember reading this as well, but I think it was a claim stated by the NHL, so who knows whether it is true or not.

Sadly, the most balanced and reasoned reporter during the negotiations has been Eklund (though I hate to call him a reporter). He seems to be the only one that isn't scaremongering and claiming the entire season is about to be lost. The differences the players and owners have now are nowhere near as big as they were in 2005. Getting a salary cap in place back then was a big deal.

They should just split the difference between what the players want and what the owners want, and be done with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if KHL games are broadcast in the US? I think being able to watch the KHL instead would be a good way to tell Bettman to get to the negotiating table immediately. What would be even better is if the KHL got better ratings and could be seen on non-cable channels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the way things seem to be going. 1 week left & no meetings scheduled? Looks to me like there will be a lockout until December or at least until the Winter Classic. :angry: If the Ducks do start up in January I hope they don't start off like they did last season or there will absolutely be no playoffs for them this season. Anyway I think this is awful for all the reasons stated but especially for Teemu! At this point I think this whole situation sucks! :angry:

Thank goodness football is here. I can at least have some other sport I love watching. It doesn't take the place of my beloved hockey, but it appears it will have to do. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if KHL games are broadcast in the US? I think being able to watch the KHL instead would be a good way to tell Bettman to get to the negotiating table immediately. What would be even better is if the KHL got better ratings and could be seen on non-cable channels.

http://www.thefirstrow.eu/sport/ice-hockey.html

Games are on every morning here on the left coast right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the way things seem to be going. 1 week left & no meetings scheduled? Looks to me like there will be a lockout until December or at least until the Winter Classic. :angry: If the Ducks do start up in January I hope they don't start off like they did last season or there will absolutely be no playoffs for them this season. Anyway I think this is awful for all the reasons stated but especially for Teemu! At this point I think this whole situation sucks! :angry:

Thank goodness football is here. I can at least have some other sport I love watching. It doesn't take the place of my beloved hockey, but it appears it will have to do. :(

I'm sorry but I am confused. Why do you think that there will be a lockout til December? If the September 15th deadline is not met, then can't the season start back up at any time once the negotiations have been settled? I am like you, I love most sports including football so yes, I will be semi entertained, but hockey is my most favorite and it will be awful to wait to wait til December or January to enjoy it again. Poop!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but I am confused. Why do you think that there will be a lockout til December?

just guessing. People that have set that date are basing on the fact the players get 20% escrow payments back on Oct. 1. This “paycheck” should last them until this date/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if they get a deal done by the middle of next month, it likely takes them another month to organize training camps and sort out a new schedule. So I doubt we see any games until at least mid-November.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if they get a deal done by the middle of next month, it likely takes them another month to organize training camps and sort out a new schedule. So I doubt we see any games until at least mid-November.

Nah I am thinking mid October the latest. The preseason will just be cut short. Plus the players agreed to play even if a deal isnt made by september 15th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...