idahophilly

That is kinda cool! 1 billion! Figures it had to be the Leafs but good for them. A milestone indeed... for all hockey... Now, if we can just get Columbus going considering they atleast made the playoffs once in the past 6 years....

Pls tell me that was a joke??? Lol ! Have you tried just putting out something weird and seeing how far this guy/kid will go with it??? Say something like Gretzky and Lemieu...x seen in shoving match after last CBA meeting

Ok... well, one could argue from now to doomesday about if numbers are accurate. Their filings and all. 1st thing is 1st... do you think you will ever know for sure? I didn't think so. Then we are left with our suspicions one way or another, whatever your leanings are right? I don't know for sure more than the next guy.... The next question to ask is if you or I or the guy at the street corner is open to new views or already made their mind up, which of coarse renders the rest of the discussion pointless... I'm sure we agree upon that. Since the the only evidence we can use is that stated we must proceed, seperating suspicion and personal desires either way as to the outcome. Agreed still? (pop)! That was the sound of opening the HRR debate. Who frickin's knowes! That has been one of my contentous things in this whole debate. But that's for the accountants... One thing that is a fact, and agreed to by the players as signed in the last CBA is that the players cost the teams 57% of HRR as it stands now. ( I dare you to try and figure out what HRR really is since both sides have twisted it beyond belief). My understanding of the analysis was that player costs don't really matter to much. If not said it was most certainly implied. I defy you to be ok with saying that if you owned your own business that 57% wasn't a serious, and VERY serious, consideration... Anything that takes up 57% is gonna have my full and undivided attention with an eye towards cutting it. Any business worth its salt is gonna do that... But, then again, few business spend 57% on labor, atleast not for very long anyway....

God, I hope who ever wrote that (the small type there) , that isn't the depth of their analysis. I mean wow! Amatuer hour ! LOL....

Ok...

I didn't say it was bashing the fans... Yes , we supply them their money to make livings, both sides. But to purchase an item, any item, someone has to build/provide that item. You cant go buy your 50 inch plasma screen unless someone builds it. Now, no one would build it if no one wanted a 50 inch plasma. And there won't be a 50 inch plasma on the shelf if there isn't someone to physicaly build it. So what conclusion can we draw??? Probably many... There are only a certain number of people who want a 50 incher! It's not bread and water. And hockey isn't either. There are FAR fewer that have the organizational skills, money and backing to develope an entire business to supply that item. And just about anyone who can speak can be trained to build them. For you and I we want the cheapest but best quality we can get. Seems labor might be absolutely crucial there.... But, the "formula" breaks down a bit when we talk about pro athelets at the highest level. See, not everyone can skate and shoot like a Giroux or Crosby... Or even be a 4th liner call up for that manner. Correct??? So far??? Snider has no "team" without the NHL and the players right. So, in this very specific niche, he pays his players anywhere from 600k to 7/8 million because he isn't in need of a guy screwing in a screw for that price. He pays that guy 30K a yr.... Why, because anyone can screw a screw.... The guy should be happy he is getting 30k.... So, the players are getting millions and the league finds itself in a situation that they need to restructure things so EVERYONE makes more money going foward. The league says take a pay cut now but oh, by the way, we'll honor all existing contracts so you don't actually lose any money... The players say no...??? Really? Anyone see the result of the last CBA? If thats called losing then sign me up.... Jack, if I came to you and handed you 10 dollars then you earned another 100 dollars that would be cool, right? Then, imagine I came to you and said I need 2 dollars back from you but when we get this solved you will get another return like last time.... With a track record already established I'm taking that bet AAAALLLLL day and on weekends to. Just food for though on a number of ideas....

I care about the players more than you evidently. I clearly see an economic model that will have the owners on solid footing and the players making way more than they did last year w/ the contracts honored fully. I want a win win and don't get blinded by my ideology in this matter. Nor will I sit around and blame the last CBA (in which the players wound up making more money than ever) and the one before that. I look to the future and realize this is a difficult situation that will require sacrafice. If you prefer, you can remain stuck in the mud and blame game and be bitter about the owners and people who supply OUR demand for a sport. Regardless, both can win and win big but... I suppose envy and hatred will rule the day... I look to a solution where Giroux and Snider can show up at a charity event in Philly and really actually like each other. Snider will have a solid footing (for the other teams anyway) and Giroux will be compensated beyond any kids possible dreams. It can happen... But it will require some things in the very short term to happen that may not be as it is first seen... My entire position, all along, is that for the players to win and win big, the owners need to win first so that there is less "sharing and propping up" of troubled teams and to allow more money, time and energy to go into growing the sport, which if you look at history (last CBA anyone) the players are gonna make out like kings... But , you are right, by all accounts I must hate the players... kinda sad that anyone in this great nation just can't get that simple economic plan.... Carry on folks and pls feel free to rip into me in the shoutbox, as usual....

Ah, another good article bashing the guys that gave the players their jobs in the 1st place... I think (since we are headed there anyway) we should outlaw all owners and investors in every business everywhere. It will then be the responsibility of the employees (which does happen but rarely) to purchase the business to keep it open or choose not to and it can close down. That way, in this case, the players can assume all the risk and invest THEIR money in this grand scheme. Ohhh, what's that??? The players and employees are not gonna do that? Don't want the risk? Don't have the money? Crosby has some, I'm sure of it...But of coarse... It is so much easier to just sit back, collect your paycheck and b & moan about how the world SHOULD work and while we are at it, by all means, lets rip into the guys that gave you the pay check. But from making tires to donuts, any industry, it's those horrible evil investors and owners! Down with them all! Gode forsake them all for actually making money. Curse them for saying "no, this is my bussiness and it won't be run by the employees..." Shun them for valueing what made us great to begin with. Yep, thats the country I'm proud of... It falls with not so much of even a whimper... (i didn't spell check disclaimer)

Thank you sir... Talk to you on the other side... of... whatever the heck is going on here.

smart.....

Much like my Twinkie fetish, you have this obsession on that 1.5 million figure which is not the case (really! I mean it literally has no basis in the reality of business accounting and law because if it did they could go get the 18 yr old kid from wallmart to do their books for them). I wish I could see economics/business that simple. Hell, we wouldn't need a single business school or corporate law attorney anywhere from sea to shining sea... I'll give ya one thing, you sure do stick by your point no matter what... You go man!

I read that also DGG. They all lose their contracts and everyone is a free agent, whether they win in court or not. There is only a 50% chance (a coin toss) if they win. If they don't my understanding is the owners can write the CBA in anyway they want and the players can play for the NHL or not. Those that do go into a massive draft. Going to court would indeed be expensive for the teams but equally crippling for the players, who would not have the benefit of the PA and their army of lawyers. The term nuclear option is rather appropriate. I suppose if the PA wants to kill the business they work for they should definatly do it. It's the closest they will get to being able to. Even if they do the wealthy owners will form a new league later and still draft their own CBA in anyway they want. If the PA wins it will have completly destroyed the ability of most teams to function and the NHL would likely collapse anyway leaving them with out jobs. Even the Flyers would be in trouble. Either way, the PA loses. The wealthy owners will be fine. They may lose the NHL and their teams but they will be fine on a personal level. The players will have spent a huge portion of their money to fight in court, lost 2-3 years of their careers and if they work in N.America ever again it will be under harsher conditions... I say go for it...

After conversing with @Flyerod he brings up a crucial point that I will tackle with a somewhat far fetched solution. I would like to discuss this with those interested and as we go along and draft our own CBA (one point at a time) as time goes along. Then, in fantacy land we can print a copy and mail it to the NHL and PA with a label "to whom it may concern"... I won't tackle the biggies yet like 50/50 splits and make whole agreements. The point Rod brought up was that no matter what the new CBA finally looks like, the next day the 30 owners will send their lawyers and GM's to find loopholes and regardless of how much either side gives up or "wins" it will all repeat itself if this point isn't fixed. It's the source of much angst and suspicion. It can serve as a backdrop that things are really being fixed. Now I believe with extremly strict rules on negotiating new contracts (whatever those rules wind up being) that this can be minimized to a great extent. But it can't be eliminated unless a new rule is put in place. Here it is: I propose we take away the NHL's oversite on whether a contract violates the CBA rules. That would be handled by a third party not beholden to either the NHL, Owners or PA. There are a number of national and international firms that are well respected that could do this. But hang on, there's more. I propose we take it a step further and allow this firm to rule on whether the spirit of the CBA was violated, even if technicaly the team operated with in the rules. This firm has final say with no appeal. What is the penalty you ask. If it's just a garden variety mistake on a technical point then the trade or contract is just void. The team and player can fix the technicality and try again. However, if the "firm" determines that technicaly everything was fine but a "loophole" was used to violate the spirit of the CBA then the offending team must pay the first years salary as proposed for that player to the "firm" who holds it in escrow to be given to a charity that may change each year but is voted on by the board of goveners. No one in the PA or NHL benefits from the money lost and also is one step in discouraging huge contracts (screw with a "Crosby like" 9 million a year deal and that team gets fined 9 million dollars). Further, as penalty to the player, who was certain to be going along with this, is fined 10% of their salary and has a 5 year moratorium of being allowed to be traded to that team (if not a member) or anyone else in that division (5 yrs, both!). If the player already is playing for the team that violates the spirit of the CBA, the player automaticaly forfeits 10% of his next contract for however long he decided to sign for. This would REALLY discourage that behavior to the point that it would be nuts to even flirt with violating the spirit of the CBA. In addition, the penalty that that player can't go to any team in that division puts serious peer pressure on a team not to "fool" around. (hell, you could even say if the Flyers screw up then they pay the 1st years salary as stated and NJ, NYI, Penguins and Rangers all have to pay 250k, that would get them all going!). This would also seperate the decision making process from the NHL which could be percieved at times of having bias and make the PA and other owners far less suspicious. One safety valve needed is a year to year salary variance rule. To prevent a team from signing Giroux to CBA "circumvention attemp" without risk a team may structure the first year of a deal at the league minimum and backload the rest, knowing they only risk that much smaller amount of money. We fix that by saying a contract can't vary by more than 5% from one year to another and no more than 20% from the first years salary over the life of the contract. No funny business allowed plus discourages (from the players stand point by far) not signing those long contracts. Anyway, feel free to tell me I'm nuts but i think it would work. If that can be agreed upon then perhaps more CBA items can be agreed on knowing that any cheating, by owner or player, has little chance of working out and with huge consequences...

Man, I can't help it. A nice moist pile of chemicals, artificial flavors and something white in the middle... To darn tasty!

That's why Eklund drives me up a wall. He wants a nice happy compromise in the middle that PO's the NHLPA and leaves the owners not getting what they need to make this work long term. I know it sounds radical to say "not much compromise" but that is the reality of the situation if you really want it fixed and possibly an even better product to watch for a decade or more. I'd be OK even if the players win overwhelmingly because at least then it would fall apart and die fast rather than a meet in the middle thing where it continues to slowly wither on the vine for another 5 years. I know we fans just want hockey back but this season is tainted anyway. Who's gonna get excited if Giroux was on pace for a record year if there had been 82 games but there's only 50 games. I don't want to win the Stanley cup this way. There will always be the asterik by it. And who gives a rats arse about the trade deadline and draft later if the system is still broke? Lets fix it or completly break it. One or the other....

Well, that's what I meant by massive contract changes. The system has to be changed. I think thats the premise of the owners stance here. If the owners get their way the PA says its the owners fault and they got screwed and if the owners don't get their way and things really go sour the PA will say it's the owners fault and they got screwed... Fix it this time and do it right is what I'm saying....

Brelic, that fact of the matter is you have a pro union point of view that is still fighting the last CBA and the CBA before that even though they were making the most money ever in player salaries. Coupled with that is a view that the owners are completly fudging the books (I can't prove it but am confident it's not true knowing just all the differnt models that can be used to file your tax info) and a puzzling expectation that all is fair. It's a recipe for disaster in my books, whether in a personal life, Hostess, car companies or the NHL. The arguement was OVER when the union heard "salary rollback". As fortune would have it for the sake of the NHLPA the average folks are not in charge of the daily negotiations, Fehr is, for the time being... Unless they pull a Twinkie (that's what I call the Hostess outcome)... What REALLY puzzles me is how the PA can't see how they lost the last CBA and wound up making out better than ever! If they would just go with the 50/50 in 2 years they would be making oodles of money... Couple that with new contract modifications and closing loopholes and walla, everyone wins...

Hostess pie anyone?

Even roller blade hockey or street hockey costs more. And if on ice or roller blades let's face it. It's just a harder sport to play. All the others at least start with your two feet on the ground...

@ruxpin Facinating thought process. Normally I'd say if the market can bare the salaries, even to the most marginal of players, then so be it. However, it seems the market can't. In your example Ville Leino is a perfect fit. One good year and then his numbers were based on what he might do as well as other similar contracts. The result was way over paying. These things don't necessarily hurt an individual team with money to blow but kills the next team with a small margin because they will likely wind up overpaying there players based on the Leino contract... I know this won't win me any union fans but that is another clear reason for salaries to be adjusted. As far as retraction, I just can't see it happening as a CHOICE. I could easily see a couple teams going belly up because of the lockout and or down the road because of a bad CBA negotiation outcome. The only viable option is to make it work through MASSIVE contract changes and a salary roll back, atleast on contracts after this point in time. It will give certainty going foward. Or the PA can just kill the sport!!!! I'm ok with it either way because in some way shape or form hockey at the elite level will be back. But the players are not gonna like it if they have a problem with this situation!

Another fun way to look at valuation is to look at a mortgage scenerio: Years ago you were young and housing was cheap. You buy a nice house for 75k on a 30 yr mortgage. 20 years later things have boomed. The house is now worth 220k and you still owe just 20k. Because your house is worth 200k more than you owe does not mean you have yet made that 200k. You have not received a single dime monthly or yearly because your house has gone up in value. In all actuality the only thing thus far received is a bigger property tax bill. (Assumining you have not dipped into the equity for a 2nd mortgage). Now you decide to sell and walla, you get the 220k for the house. Now here are a few fun ways to decide how much money you actually made (forget taxes right now): 1st, you could say that you sold for 220k and owed 20k so you just made 200k. Nice! And certainly a real life way of looking at that. I mean afterall, it's been 20 years. But... : 2nd, did you really make 200k? You spent 75k afterall to get the place and paid way more than that on the 20yrs of interest you also paid. Lets say 40k in interest. So, now you in affect paid 55k in principle, the 20k you had not yet paid out but have to so the loan is gone and 40k in interest or overall 115k over the 20 yrs, leaving you with 105k. Still not bad. Ooops, forgot about capital gains so tear off 50% plus other taxes and fees. You got maybe 25% of what looks like at first blush to have been a 200K windfall... So now just up scale the same basic concept for whatever business you are talking about. My point is, the owner who paid 50 mil for a franchise that is now worth 100 mil won't see 50 mil in profits when he sells the team... Not that that really helps the day to day ops much anyway... Just the same way that because your house went way up in value it didn't help you pay the electric bill for the past 20 yrs...

LOL! I could agree with that. It's actually a pretty state if you stay out of Cleveland and Toledo.... I'm working on another "valuation" example post, just for the hell of it...

I responded to Van on a few issues but touched on the Columbus thing... I'd be willing to TRY and sell some clothes at the nudist colony but I'm afraid it would all be senior citizens (or worse)....

A note on make whole: The teams said they are willing to cover all existing contracts but want to defer it through escrow over the life of the contract. This is very important I believe. This allows the team this year and next to pay out at the 50% level rather than the 57% level. Then, they have the cushion once revenues have increased to spread the remaining original 7% missed by the players out over a bit more time. All the players get all their money but gives the teams a chance to restructure their operations, contracts and such, build in cost certainty and gives them that up front relief the really bad teams need as well as give both players and teams time to work under new logical and responsible bargaining/contracting rules that will be in place going foward... Sorry for the run on sentence....

OK, once again... You can buy a stock and it can double every year for 10 years straight. You don't have any access to that money until you decide to sell it. You can't go buy a new car by just saying "hey, look at my portfolio"... The car dealer is gonna say nice but tell you to sell your stock and write me a check before you get the car. So, for a owner lets say their team doubles in value. Sweet, good for them. But it's an investment gain that is theoretical until you sell it. Now, hang with me here... When the owner (if ever) decides to sell that team they are no longer owners so the "doubled money" isn't going into the team. The owner is walking away with that money to go invest in his/her next project. Meanwhile, the NEW owner had to pay double what the old debt load was to get the team (hence the original owners huge payday he walked away with). So, if a team was struggling when they had (easy numbers here) 50 million the original owners paid, then over a decade the team doubles it's valuation and now the new owner had to purchase it for 100 million, then I pose the question, will the team be better off? No... The on ice product hasn't changed. Ticket sales likely didn't change. The most you can hope for is that the new ownership group has extra money to invest in some big players, keep ticket prices where they are and pay off the debt incurred over the 10 years of losses (which would likely have been factored into the purchase price making the new owners having to cough up even more money for the team). Your team can double or triple in valuation but lose money every year. The good thing about the valuation is you MIGHT be able to get loans based on the value to keep the team afloat. However, that in essence is like taking a 2nd loan on your house then you wait 5 years and use what ever equity you have accumulated to take out a third and leverage yourself to death. Hence the main issue with why the NHL needs certain guarantees on cost structure because you can't stay viable for ever. Once you reach a tipping point is when I suspect that original owners makes the decision to bail, sells his team for double what he paid or started it for and walks away with all the money. The 50 million he makes isn't going back into the team unless he decides for whatever whacked out reason to invest as a minority owner/investor. Another note, teams in this situation will likely WANT to show a loss for tax purposes because if they show a slight profit it does nothing for them. Once again, 2 million loss by LA. Hmmm, seems narrow to me for a company that size. Look to what the owners are asking for in salary reduction and your likely to find that it covers all the teams losses in the NHL. That puts them on a solid footing, sans bad business decisions (ala Columbus). With it being a 50/50 split and not a hard number and the NHL back to growing in a couple years the revenues will grow big time. This means the players will be getting 50% of a MUCH larger pie. (pls see next post on make whole) In 3 years they will be making more money than they did last year. But it can only happen if each team is on solid financial footings, cost and contract guarantees, enough money to VERY aggresively market (hence growth), focus on growing the product instead of fighting the next CBA battle and access to financial loans if when they need for all sorts of things. The Islanders can't get a new stadium built. Neither can the Oilers. Do I even need to say anything about Phoenix? (they are still looking for more investors and guess what, still can't find enough, atleast thats the last I heard). Columbus can't win to save their lives nor afford or retain star players. How could you blame them to not want to be around that mess. Touching on Rux's point last night about Columbus and Phoenix, among others, and how they are affecting contracts I must admit I'm still working on that. It seems to me better examples may be Minnesota and Nashville. Both teams, for their own reasons were forced into extremely costly contracts last year that almost certainly will have bad consequences down the road. They simply paid players that they really can't afford long term. Sure, they WILL actually pay them but at what cost to icing the rest of the team and signing bonus money comes right out of the owners pocket before a single ticket has been sold. That seriously limits all sorts of operations later on because that money was spent on the player rather than a stadium remodel, advertising, top notch staff ect... As far a Columbus goes, it's not really a geographical issue in that Ohio is a northern state with lots of cold weather. It's a big city, relatively speaking. I have been there 3-4 times. Ohio is into the college and other sports. Now, had we seen 10 years of good drafting and hockey ops who knows what could have been but that is a "could-woulda-shoulda" scenerio and becomes nearly impossible to debate. One thing is for sure, with the Weber, Suter and Parise signings, it almost completly prices your Phoenix, Islander, Devil. and Columbus like teams out of the market. On the flip side, simply spending a new owners money doesn't always work either. Look at Pegulla (sp?) and the Sabres! They are a facinating study themselves and when a team pays Ville "frickin'" Leino 4.5 million you gotta start asking tough questions. That has a detremental effect on the rest of the league, hence the need for comprehensive contractual restructuring for all 30 NHL teams. Then the NHL has, as well argued already, put 2nd teams in bad market areas. Miami ! Anaheim ! If New York City can barely handle 3 teams then can south Florida. Can Phoenix handle even 1? I think the only geographical area that could handle 3 teams is the Buffalo-Toronto-Hamilton area.... Back to my main point to wrap this up: It's clear some teams simply can't afford to ice a competative team. The owners have but 2 choices, relocate/fold 4-6 teams (NHLPA is against that) or get cost certainty for the teams so they can function competativly (= salary reduction, NHLPA is against that). And walla, we are back to the original problem: the CBA and the lockout.... The owners want to fix it and the PA won't let them. I long ago stopped caring about who to blame but for the next negotiating session they should agree to a 50/50 split, not of the money, but for the blame.