OK, maybe Pegula takes his 1 vote against the rest of the league. Pegula is the new guy in the owners ring. He has a small market team that is not responsible for a huge chunk of revenue. How much pull do you think he has. Plus, maybe he agrees with what the owners are trying to do because he is a good businessman. The one thing that can never be said of Pegula is that he is using his team for ANY type of money grab.
- Dwight K. Schrute

I'm not doubting his passion for his team, and I'm sure he isn't the only owner who has a team because they love the game. But come on, people can't rip on the owners for being greedy and say they are only trying to get more money then say specific owners are not included cause they don't care about making money(Unanimous vote means every owner). Pegula is no fool, and if he like the rest of the owners see a window to make more revenue to support operating costs and give them a chance at turning a profit or atleast not loosing money, they're going to jump on it.

Pretty sure those businesses don't last long. Plus, I'll bet if you poll those contractors, they would vote to change that structure if they could.
- Dwight K. Schrute

Of course they do many many many professions bid on contracts, lowest bid wins. Plumbing, roofing, any construction, oil field etc. It's not unusual for labour to come in anywheres from 50 to 80 percent of your bid.

Atleast the NHL has their labour costs set at a constant. They know regardless the max they can pay out tied directly to revenue. Not many businesses can say the same.

I'm not doubting his passion for his team, and I'm sure he isn't the only owner who has a team because they love the game. But come on, people can't rip on the owners for being greedy and say they are only trying to get more money then say specific owners are not included cause they don't care about making money(Unanimous vote means every owner). Pegula is no fool, and if he like the rest of the owners see a window to make more revenue to support operating costs and give them a chance at turning a profit or atleast not loosing money, they're going to jump on it.
- Bozzy

Did you ever think that maybe he is going along with this because of the other franchises that do not have an owner like him may not have the financial means to stay afloat under the previous deal. Remember, he has to think of his team as well as the good of the entire league. Pegula has little to no influence with the owners yet and he is in no position to be the Jerry Jones of the NHL.

Pretty sure those businesses don't last long. Plus, I'll bet if you poll those contractors, they would vote to change that structure if they could.
- Dwight K. Schrute

on an individual job basis maybe the owner makes less than an employee.. but that owner is typically working on multiple jobs at once which allows him to make more over the course of the year. the only way this might be is if it is a small business that is basicaly a partnership but only one has sole rights to the company.

Where is this factory job you speak of? $20 an hour would make me Buffalo rich.
- Pierceme69

Used to be Delphi back in the day....

Most of my family worked there and started out at a ridiculous pay rate....

you obviously didn't understand the question.. it what business does an employee make more than the owner.. does that make it easier for you to understand.. not the employees as a whole but the individual. let me know if i have to draw you a picture
- SabresFaninIndiana

Um ok let me try spoon feeding you. The 57 percent goes to the employees as a whole (obviously). So there are very few players making close to the max. Which employee is making more than the owner? Only the owners that are operating at a loss, which once again routinely happens in business.

When I was younger and has a small roofing company of my own was their times when my cut was actually smaller than all of my employees? You bet it was. They get their 16-22 an hour regardless I get what's left. Most of the time it's significant, sometimes it's not, that's business.

The problem the league has is the striking dichotomy between the rich and the poor. Could the top half of the league survive at 57 percent? Absolutely, but the bottom cannot. What happens if the NHL gets what they want labour cost go down to 43% and a handful of teams (you know who you are) continue to hemorrhage money? What concessions should the players make then as well?

Right, and that CBA is up. As owners, it is within their rights to negotiate a new CBA.

Ideally the league should be 24 teams, but it's not a reality. Cutting 6 teams would cost the NHL too much money. Those 6 teams would have to be bought out. Buying out 6 teams would cost the NHL around 1 billion... Also, do you think the NHLPA would agree to cutting 6 teams? A lot of their members would lose jobs... Not happening. I agree that several teams should be relocated though. Phoenix for sure... That place is nothing but a money sucker.
- laughs2907

What do you think would happen to the lovely NBC TV deal if you were to cut 6 major media markets?

Um ok let me try spoon feeding you. The 57 percent goes to the employees as a whole (obviously). So there are very few players making close to the max. Which employee is making more than the owner? Only the owners that are operating at a loss, which once again routinely happens in business.

When I was younger and has a small roofing company of my own was their times when my cut was actually smaller than all of my employees? You bet it was. They get their 16-22 an hour regardless I get what's left. Most of the time it's significant, sometimes it's not, that's business.

The problem the league has is the striking dichotomy between the rich and the poor. Could the top half of the league survive at 57 percent? Absolutely, but the bottom cannot. What happens if the NHL gets what they want labour cost go down to 43% and a handful of teams (you know who you are) continue to hemorrhage money? What concessions should the players make then as well?
- Blazed

So why are these employees entitled to more of the revenue than the people who:
1. own and or maintain the arenas in which they play.
2. advertise and market said employees.
3. Pay expensive travel expenses.
4. provide superb health and fitness care.
I'm sure I left things out but you should get the point.

So why are these employees entitled to more of the revenue than the people who:
1. own and or maintain the arenas in which they play.
2. advertise and market said employees.
3. Pay expensive travel expenses.
4. provide superb health and fitness care.
I'm sure I left things out but you should get the point.
- Dwight K. Schrute

Not entitled no. Negotiated for at the expense of a true free market system the owners have their cost certainty.

What is your answer to teams still bleeding money at a lower labour cost?

Unanimous doesn't mean 100%. It means more for than against. I'll bet Pegula was not part of that unanimous vote.
- sippyd

The point I'm trying to get across is some are trashing Pegula and I'll bet he voted against the lockout. to you to, you banana in desguise!!! (Indi)

Did you ever think that maybe he is going along with this because of the other franchises that do not have an owner like him may not have the financial means to stay afloat under the previous deal. Remember, he has to think of his team as well as the good of the entire league. Pegula has little to no influence with the owners yet and he is in no position to be the Jerry Jones of the NHL.
- Dwight K. Schrute

And that would be correct, it's what the league feels they need to do, but I find it naive to think Pegula doesn't want to make it easier to operate his own franchise and make more revenue doing it. Otherwise, why did he increase Ticket prices last year (correct me if I'm wrong) if he doesn't care about the revenue the Sabres bring in to support his own operating costs? Does he not accept the revenue sharing payments from the league as well? I think he's a great owner with his passion for the game, but he's no different then the rest in his goals to make his team financially succesfull.

What do you think would happen to the lovely NBC TV deal if you were to cut 6 major media markets?
- Blazed

I said it doesn't make sense to cut 6 teams. Several should be relocated though.

Unanimous doesn't mean 100%. It means more for than against. I'll bet Pegula was not part of that unanimous vote.
- sippyd

Wow! Do we share home towns?

The point I'm trying to get across is some are trashing Pegula and I'll bet he voted against the lockout. to you to, you banana in desguise!!! (Indi)
- sippyd

LOL...But he didn't vote against it. EVERY owner (Unanimous) voted in support of locking the players out.

I said it doesn't make sense to cut 6 teams. Several should be relocated though.
- laughs2907

Sure that might fly if you relocate to Seatlle, Las Vegas, and Oklahoma City. NBC could care less about teams in Canada.

And that would be correct, it's what the league feels they need to do, but I find it naive to think Pegula doesn't want to make it easier to operate his own franchise and make more revenue doing it. Otherwise, why did he increase Ticket prices last year (correct me if I'm wrong) if he doesn't care about the revenue the Sabres bring in to support his own operating costs? Does he not accept the revenue sharing payments from the league as well? I think he's a great owner with his passion for the game, but he's no different then the rest in his goals to make his team financially succesfull.
- Bozzy

So when his costs go up, he can not increase the price of his product to compensate? Maybe he should just ride through Buffalo on a unicorn crapping out free tickets for everyone to have while impregnating the mothers of future superstars.

So when his costs go up, he can not increase the price of his product to compensate? Maybe he should just ride through Buffalo on a unicorn crapping out free tickets for everyone to have while impregnating the mothers of future superstars.
- Dwight K. Schrute

This seems to be what light Garth and some other fans put him in as an Owner. My argument is that he is not so unlike the rest of them and it's naive to think otherwise.

The point I'm trying to get across is some are trashing Pegula and I'll bet he voted against the lockout. to you to, you banana in desguise!!! (Indi)
- sippyd

what? i am the banana in disguise..

unanimous means that everyone voted the same way.. everyone means all owners.. Pegula is an owner.. therefore Pegula voted for the lockout.

This seems to be what light Garth and some other fans put him in as an Owner. My argument is that he is not so unlike the rest of them and it's naive to think otherwise.
- Bozzy

Maybe its because Pegula himself has said he is not in this for the money. But he does have many other employees other than the players to worry about. Since he purchased the team what has he done? Millions into a brand new locker room....check, many arena upgrades....check, removed finacial constraints ffrom the hockey dept.....check. And lets not forget the development of the Webster block. He has done more for Buffalo in 2 years than the state has in 20.

Um ok let me try spoon feeding you. The 57 percent goes to the employees as a whole (obviously). So there are very few players making close to the max. Which employee is making more than the owner? Only the owners that are operating at a loss, which once again routinely happens in business.

When I was younger and has a small roofing company of my own was their times when my cut was actually smaller than all of my employees? You bet it was. They get their 16-22 an hour regardless I get what's left. Most of the time it's significant, sometimes it's not, that's business.

The problem the league has is the striking dichotomy between the rich and the poor. Could the top half of the league survive at 57 percent? Absolutely, but the bottom cannot. What happens if the NHL gets what they want labour cost go down to 43% and a handful of teams (you know who you are) continue to hemorrhage money? What concessions should the players make then as well?
- Blazed

Well if you are the owner of a business and an employee makes more money than you on a consistent basis you are doing something wrong.. just sayin.

There is a major issue with the spread of profit from top to bottom in the league.. they need to address that i agree.. i don't really get into the economics of the NHL/NHLPA negotiations so i am not really able to comment on them.

I said it doesn't make sense to cut 6 teams. Several should be relocated though.
- laughs2907

the NHLPA would NEVER agree to this.. they would be tar and feathered by half the league if they did agree to it..

And that would be correct, it's what the league feels they need to do, but I find it naive to think Pegula doesn't want to make it easier to operate his own franchise and make more revenue doing it. Otherwise, why did he increase Ticket prices last year (correct me if I'm wrong) if he doesn't care about the revenue the Sabres bring in to support his own operating costs? Does he not accept the revenue sharing payments from the league as well? I think he's a great owner with his passion for the game, but he's no different then the rest in his goals to make his team financially succesfull.
- Bozzy

Oh yeah, Buffalo is still below the league average in ticket prices. I believe we were 26 on the list. And even with the increase we are still below the average ticket price throughout the league.

Across-the-board boycott of the Winter Classic!!!

what? i am the banana in disguise..

unanimous means that everyone voted the same way.. everyone means all owners.. Pegula is an owner.. therefore Pegula voted for the lockout.
- SabresFaninIndiana

Blah Blah Blah

Sure that might fly if you relocate to Seatlle, Las Vegas, and Oklahoma City. NBC could care less about teams in Canada.
- Blazed

Seattle would be one location. I'd go with one more from the US and the other in Canada.