Why do fans need to look at the ledger sheet at all?

As I have indicated above, it makes absolutely no difference to the on-ice product.

I don't care if the Panthers or Blue Jackets or Coyotes are losing money hand over fist - that's the owners' problem, not mine.

I only care about hockey. And the product right now is great.

You may want to argue that without the financially-strapped franchises, we wouldn't be in a lockout, but I'd argue that the NFL has buckets of cash, and they still have labour woes from time to time.
- Atomic Wedgie

How are you liking the on ice product so far this year?

Hell no.

You may want to argue that without the financially-strapped franchises, we wouldn't be in a lockout, but I'd argue that the NFL has buckets of cash, and they still have labour woes from time to time.
- Atomic Wedgie

The lockouts/strikes would just be over more money. No different.

Buttman is a very successful man and doing a great job in the eyes of the owners. He is not the issue, (although I'd love to see him get hit by a puck in the mouth from Chara), players are the issue here. The owners take huge financial risks and they have the right to get adequate revenue based on their investments. Players get paid way too much to play the game they love and still wouldn't want to sign. I'd play for 60k a year with a smile on my face every game, let alone few millions. Com'on you greedy fukcs! sign the sh!t already!
- hooligoon

Well sure you'd accept $60,000/yr to play hockey - I'd accept $60,000/yr to play hockey too. But unfortunately, nobody's calling our agents, are they?

Fact is, these guys make less than HALF what they are making in the NBA. Plus their careers are shorter. Plus, the NHL has had better attendance/turnstyle revenue than the NBA for several years. Plus, the owners have increased their annual revenues from $2.2 BILLION to $3.3 BILLION since the last labor dispute. These (slave) owners have PLENTY of money.

I don't really get your knee-jerk sympathy for the same millionaire scumbags who jerk all of us working stiffs around.

"The owners take huge financial risks and they have the right to get adequate revenue based on their investments."

What a joke! Those dirtbags don't take any risks - they force municipal and state/provincial governments to take all the risks and foot the bill for their billion dollar arenas. Or else they cry and threaten to move to Amarillo.

GIVE ME A BREAK, DUDE.

How are you liking the on ice product so far this year?
- braidan

As per my previous post, folding the Coyotes and Blue Jackets would not deliver labour harmony.

C'mon, Braidan - I know you are a Habs fan, but [insult deleted to ensure Atomic Wedgie doesn't get banned].

Well sure you'd accept $60,000/yr to play hockey - I'd accept $60,000/yr to play hockey too. But unfortunately, nobody's calling our agents, are they?

Fact is, these guys make less than HALF what they are making in the NBA. Plus their careers are shorter. Plus, the NHL has had better attendance/turnstyle revenue than the NBA for several years. Plus, the owners have increased their annual revenues from $2.2 BILLION to $3.3 BILLION since the last labor dispute. These (slave) owners have PLENTY of money.

I don't really get your knee-jerk sympathy for the same millionaire scumbags who jerk all of us working stiffs around.

"The owners take huge financial risks and they have the right to get adequate revenue based on their investments."

What a joke! Those dirtbags don't take any risks - they force municipal and state/provincial governments to take all the risks and foot the bill for their billion dollar arenas. Or else they cry and threaten to move to Amarillo.

GIVE ME A BREAK, DUDE.
- CapsPsycho

Of course, an NHL roster is TWICE as large...

Well sure you'd accept $60,000/yr to play hockey - I'd accept $60,000/yr to play hockey too. But unfortunately, nobody's calling our agents, are they?

Fact is, these guys make less than HALF what they are making in the NBA. Plus their careers are shorter. Plus, the NHL has had better attendance/turnstyle revenue than the NBA for several years. Plus, the owners have increased their annual revenues from $2.2 BILLION to $3.3 BILLION since the last labor dispute. These (slave) owners have PLENTY of money.

I don't really get your knee-jerk sympathy for the same millionaire scumbags who jerk all of us working stiffs around.

"The owners take huge financial risks and they have the right to get adequate revenue based on their investments."

What a joke! Those dirtbags don't take any risks - they force municipal and state/provincial governments to take all the risks and foot the bill for their billion dollar arenas. Or else they cry and threaten to move to Amarillo.

GIVE ME A BREAK, DUDE.
- CapsPsycho

its called capitalism.

its how things work here.

fact is.. without the owners there is no opportunity for the players to exploit their skills, it has to be a functioning symbiotic relationship, the players need the owners as much as the owners need the skill and promotional advantage of the players. as soon as one side begins to earn to much the relationship fails.. which costs both sides.

I've often wondered if moving a team to Hamilton or London would be in the best interests of the game of hockey.

Put a team in London, it would probably hurt 4-5 OHL franchises.
- Atomic Wedgie

It’s a phenomenally complicated thing to look at. There are so many angles to consider that your average fan doesn’t realize.

Straight economics. Moving a team from Phoenix to Hamilton, many assume it’s a financial gain to the league, straight up. Don’t be so sure. You move that team into southern Ontario, you’re not gaining any new fans. Rather, you’re likely carving a segment of the fans out of the Leafs and Sabres fanbase. Would the Leafs survive? Obviously. The Sabres? Likely. But they’d both take a hit in profitability, to some extent (I have no idea to what extent). TV contracts? Again, not really an increase in viewership. You’re losing any viewers you have in Phoenix, and not really gaining any in Southern Ontario. Just shifting them from team to another. It hurts you with NBC, and doesn’t really help you all that much with TSN/CBC/Sportsnet. There are some places you would gain… but overall, net gain? I don’t know. The key idea is that every fan in Phoenix adds revenue dollars to the NHL. Few to no fans for a new team in Ontario do the same thing, rather, they just divert dollars from one team to a new one.

Let’s say you cut out the bottom five teams in terms of revenue. Under the last CBA, that pushes up the average revenue per team (at the very least, temporarily). Cap goes up. You’d probably push a few of the teams that were on the cusp into loss territory.

Either way, I think you’d get one hell of a fight from the PA on this anyway. The last thing they want to see is 150 NHL players out of a job. The NHL wouldn’t be too keen on dumping a few owners either.

Of course, an NHL roster is TWICE as large...
- Atomic Wedgie

people tend to forget that when making that argument.

i am sure the owners would go for a setup like the NFL where the only guaranteed contracts are the ones that stipulate that.

in the NFL, most players can be cut at no additional cost to the owners, simply you get cut, you stop earning money.

and if anyone tries to tell me that football players dont risk their bodies i'd say there is some delusional thinking going on.

You act like they could have just said "1%, that's what you're getting, and you'll like it.... That is all".

Is that your opinion?
- prock

Nope -- they couldn't have said 1%. They did say 57% at a time when the PA had completely fallen apart and when they were able to implement a cap that the players spent a year fighting. They had the hammer and brought in 57% as a reasonable split.

I'm not arguing that it's the right number. All I'm saying is that it wasn't insane then and the League has not come any closer to collapsing since then. It is simply what they were prepared then and more than they want to pay now. It is no more reasonable or unreasonable than 47% for the players.

It’s a phenomenally complicated thing to look at. There are so many angles to consider that your average fan doesn’t realize.

Straight economics. Moving a team from Phoenix to Hamilton, many assume it’s a financial gain to the league, straight up. Don’t be so sure. You move that team into southern Ontario, you’re not gaining any new fans. Rather, you’re likely carving a segment of the fans out of the Leafs and Sabres fanbase. Would the Leafs survive? Obviously. The Sabres? Likely. But they’d both take a hit in profitability, to some extent (I have no idea to what extent). TV contracts? Again, not really an increase in viewership. You’re losing any viewers you have in Phoenix, and not really gaining any in Southern Ontario. Just shifting them from team to another. It hurts you with NBC, and doesn’t really help you all that much with TSN/CBC/Sportsnet. There are some places you would gain… but overall, net gain? I don’t know. The key idea is that every fan in Phoenix adds revenue dollars to the NHL. Few to no fans for a new team in Ontario do the same thing, rather, they just divert dollars from one team to a new one.

Let’s say you cut out the bottom five teams in terms of revenue. Under the last CBA, that pushes up the average revenue per team (at the very least, temporarily). Cap goes up. You’d probably push a few of the teams that were on the cusp into loss territory.

Either way, I think you’d get one hell of a fight from the PA on this anyway. The last thing they want to see is 150 NHL players out of a job. The NHL wouldn’t be too keen on dumping a few owners either.
- prock

the coyotes are an excellent example of this. pheonix is a major television hub connecting the east to the west.

you need those mid western teams in he states, they are more important than simply their draw at the box office.

As per my previous post, folding the Coyotes and Blue Jackets would not deliver labour harmony.

C'mon, Braidan - I know you are a Habs fan, but
- Atomic Wedgie[insult deleted to ensure Atomic Wedgie doesn't get banned].

I'll say it again, the simplest thing seems to be 45-45 with 10 going into fund for rev sharing.

Of course, an NHL roster is TWICE as large...
- Atomic Wedgie

And NFL rosters are way bigger than that. And they play a quarter of the games. But wait, their stadiums are five times the size.

It’s almost like you can’t directly compare all the major pro sports like that.

I'm not trying too hard to take the owners side but I generally believe businesses deserve the right to manage their businesses as they see fit. It sucks as fans in this case that we lose hockey while they fight over this. The owners sacrificed to get cost certainty 7 years ago and turned around a ship that needed turning. It doesn't mean the terms of 7 years ago work for business today. Business is a dynamic fluid thing. They want change just as much as the players want status quo. The players insist on a union so the owners have to act accordingly. That's life when you deal with a union. Again, it sucks for us as fans but who are we to tell a business how to run. If we don't like it we just stop buying their tickets and products. Simple.
- FuzE_gus

Of course they have the right to organize their business as they see fit, But if they have collective agreements with their workers, there will be limits as to how they can organize their businesses.

the coyotes are an excellent example of this. pheonix is a major television hub connecting the east to the west.

you need those mid western teams in he states, they are more important than simply their draw at the box office.
- Dozzer

As I say, it’s phenomenally complicated thing to figure out. Much more complicated than the average fan wants to recognize. It’s not like Bettman and the owner’s got up one morning, and thought “I’m gonna find the closest desert and put a hockey rink there”. There are some very good reasons they chose to try to locate in Phoenix. Reasons that are still quite valid today. And, as I said earlier, I do think hockey can survive there (thrive? Not so sure), it’s just been so poorly executed that in it’s current form, the current franchise may be doomed.

its called capitalism.

its how things work here.

fact is.. without the owners there is no opportunity for the players to exploit their skills, it has to be a functioning symbiotic relationship, the players need the owners as much as the owners need the skill and promotional advantage of the players. as soon as one side begins to earn to much the relationship fails.. which costs both sides.
- Dozzer

IMO, the difference between the players earning and the owners is significant. Players earned money is cash in the bank. Thomas Vanek could play next year, earn his 5.75 mil (7 mil cap hit) and retire just on that alone. He can walk away from hockey and not owe anyone a thing. Meanwhile, a lawsuit filed that same season against the owner by some guy who slipped and cracked his head open in the hallway in finalized. You wont see the players splitting that bill with the owner. They don't have to, the inherit no risk. Furethermore what if the team has 2 bad seasons in a row and loses 4 mil per year. When will you ever see an NHL player lose 4 mil a season?

absolutely. i'd support any "(frank) you" to the NHLPA.

I'll say it again, the simplest thing seems to be 45-45 with 10 going into fund for rev sharing.
- braidan

that's 45-55

IMO, the difference between the players earning and the owners is significant. Players earned money is cash in the bank. Thomas Vanek could play next year, earn his 5.75 mil (7 mil cap hit) and retire just on that alone. He can walk away from hockey and not owe anyone a thing. Meanwhile, a lawsuit filed that same season against the owner by some guy who slipped and cracked his head open in the hallway in finalized. You wont see the players splitting that bill with the owner. They don't have to, the inherit no risk. Furethermore what if the team has 2 bad seasons in a row and loses 4 mil per year. When will you ever see an NHL player lose 4 mil a season?
- Buffalo--Sabres

Owners bring their capital and organizational supports. They earn based on profit and assume risk.

Workers bring their skill and labour. They earn based a set amount based on an agreement with the owners.

This has pretty well been in place since the end of slavery

IMO, the difference between the players earning and the owners is significant. Players earned money is cash in the bank. Thomas Vanek could play next year, earn his 5.75 mil (7 mil cap hit) and retire just on that alone. He can walk away from hockey and not owe anyone a thing. Meanwhile, a lawsuit filed that same season against the owner by some guy who slipped and cracked his head open in the hallway in finalized. You wont see the players splitting that bill with the owner. They don't have to, the inherit no risk. Furethermore what if the team has 2 bad seasons in a row and loses 4 mil per year. When will you ever see an NHL player lose 4 mil a season?
- Buffalo--Sabres

Darren McCarty.

As of this post, 29% of voters would go watch replacement players.

WTF?

If you want to watch minor league hockey, can't you already do that? And surely it would be cheaper to watch the AHL or ECHL or OHL or whatever HL you want than to go watch replacement players in NHL arenas.

Owners bring their capital and organizational supports. They earn based on profit and assume risk.

Workers bring their skill and labour. They earn based a set amount based on an agreement with the owners.

This has pretty well been in place since the end of slavery
- Canada Cup

How many business are run where you have 4 employees per team making the same take home cash as the owner but with no assumed risk financially?

Thats either a seriously failing business or a sucessfull one that is way out of whack.

How many business are run where you have 4 employees per team making the same take home cash as the owner but with no assumed risk financially?

Thats either a seriously failing business or a sucessfull one that is way out of whack.
- Buffalo--Sabres

Depends on how important labour is to the product. Not at all out of whack in sports/entertainment

Darren McCarty.
- Atomic Wedgie

Darren paid his team to let him play?

that's 45-55
- scotch_tape

Not really, the 10% could go into a fund and after the poor teams have been paid half could go into the player retirement fund and half back to the teams.
I'm just spitballing here