thanks UG but i bet rent alone is 20 million dollars
- bobbyisno1

you'd lose that bet.

It would be something else if it came back on the teams in a harsh way. But how would it? They couldn't just cancel the deals, they've been made already. Though I guess they did roll back the money after the 1st one. I don't know what will happen, unfortunately I'm not a hockey agent lawyer capologist.
- weirdoh

The only think I can think of is they take out the average cap hit and your cap hit is what you are getting paid that year. Or take a 3 year average IE: Current year, previous year and next year not matter what the length of contract.

It can be explained using Einstein's theory of relativity. If you have a talented player surrounded by untalented players, the talented player will stand out much more than normal. Schenn, at one time, was the lone bright spot and people gravitated towards him as such. Now, that has begun to happen with Gardiner. But the second you compare him to others across the league, the gem losses a little bit of it's luster because the relativity changes.
- Two_For_Truth

Or until the pressures in TO that were previously polished by the fans and media heavily weighs on the wrong cleavage lines (aka the players mistakes and weakness), and what was once a sure fire brilliant diamond becomes an industrial grade diamond pieces and not near as valuable or brilliant as its potential once was.

thanks UG but i bet rent alone is 20 million dollars
- bobbyisno1

Rent for a building they won't be using? I doubt it.

Or until the pressures in TO that were previously polished by the fans and media heavily weighs on the wrong cleavage lines (aka the players mistakes and weakness), and what was once a sure fire brilliant diamond becomes an industrial grade diamond pieces and not near as valuable or brilliant as its potential once was.
- eihcnerf

Not true. Brilliant potential is in the eye of the beholder.

IT'S PRETTY WILD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


God that was bad...
- Pecafan Fan

Or until the pressures in TO that were previously polished by the fans and media heavily weighs on the wrong cleavage lines (aka the players mistakes and weakness), and what was once a sure fire brilliant diamond becomes an industrial grade diamond pieces and not near as valuable or brilliant as its potential once was.
- eihcnerf

The analogy is outgrowing it's purpose.

Oh dear, Zeppelin, stat!
- LeafMan

Just for you Lou!!!!

Imagine a team that loses 20 million dollars per year. Suppose there is a lockout and they lose only 2 million dollars. That's 18 million dollars they didn't lose. It's not profit but it's not debt either.

Now imagine a new economic model that has them losing 10 million dollars instead of 20 million. Then they lose 5 million dollars the next year before finally turning a small profit of 1 million the next year.

That's either 80 million dollars lost or 32 million dollars lost over four years.

Pretty easy to see that the teams bleeding money would have little to no problem with a lockout.
- Two_For_Truth

You're making the assumption that when hockey resumes, revenue will return to pre-lockout levels.

I think you're also underestimating the fixed and long term costs that don't cease just because you stop playing hockey.

And, as for long term profitability, the latest CBA didn't even come close to fixing that issue. Why the faith in it now?

With all due respect, we're sitting here debating whether or not there are hockey teams who would be better off financially not playing hockey, the one operation that the business exists to do. That probably says more about the long term viability of these franchises beyond a lock-out than anything.

It would be something else if it came back on the teams in a harsh way. But how would it? They couldn't just cancel the deals, they've been made already. Though I guess they did roll back the money after the 1st one. I don't know what will happen, unfortunately I'm not a hockey agent lawyer capologist.
- weirdoh

Would be good to see them do something like any contract over 6 years in length is dropped down to 6 years remaining.

So if you have one of those BS contracts that pay you a dollar in the final 4 years...you'd lose those and would have to deal with the rise in cap hit.

Man, that would be a thing of beauty to watch the reactions. Burke would just be sitting back smiling.

The analogy is outgrowing it's purpose.
- Two_For_Truth

My point was don't take your diamond and polish it before it has been cut and shaped.

not really, a team that loses $40M a year is only likely to lose a fraction of that when there is no hockey...
- Big_Lightnin

Plus the added benefits of a better economical structure in the future.

The teams that don't want a lockout are the ones who make money every year. The early months of the season could also be sacrificed because a lot of teams don't draw a lot of interest during those months.

Trevor Linden said this last month.

"I would not be surprised to see a couple months go down," Linden told TEAM 1040 in Vancouver on Wednesday. "When you talk about ownership, especially in the States, they look at October and November as really tough months for them. They're dealing with Major League Baseball and the World Series (as well as) the NFL; so their season starts in December and works through January, February, March. If they're going to miss anything, they want to miss those months." ... "I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple months lost, but I would be surprised to see it go into December."

You're making the assumption that when hockey resumes, revenue will return to pre-lockout levels.

I think you're also underestimating the fixed and long term costs that don't cease just because you stop playing hockey.

And, as for long term profitability, the latest CBA didn't even come close to fixing that issue. Why the faith in it now?

With all due respect, we're sitting here debating whether or not there are hockey teams who would be better off financially not playing hockey, the one operation that the business exists to do. That probably says more about the long term viability of these franchises beyond a lock-out than anything.
- Leeman4Gilmour

well that's another conversation isn't it.

Phoenix was losing $40M a year. Atlanta was close to that. Columbus has to be as well. And these are franchises that aren't worth $150M, so 4 years of that, and you can't even make a profit selling the thing.

You're making the assumption that when hockey resumes, revenue will return to pre-lockout levels.

I think you're also underestimating the fixed and long term costs that don't cease just because you stop playing hockey.

And, as for long term profitability, the latest CBA didn't even come close to fixing that issue. Why the faith in it now?

With all due respect, we're sitting here debating whether or not there are hockey teams who would be better off financially not playing hockey, the one operation that the business exists to do. That probably says more about the long term viability of these franchises beyond a lock-out than anything.
- Leeman4Gilmour

Yes, it probably does.

But the bottom line is this: the lockout was a good thing for the owners. For the small franchises, it stopped them from bleeding money. For the large franchises, it greatly reduced their payrolls.

The owners have no fear of another lockout. None. It worked before, so they have no reason to believe it won't work again.

And although you and I both think it is laughable, the owners truly believe that this time, they will get it right.

not really, a team that loses $40M a year is only likely to lose a fraction of that when there is no hockey...
- Big_Lightnin

I don't think any franchises are losing quite that much. They'd be bankrupt already. considering a small-market team has a net worth of around 150 million bucks, I doubt they'd be in business long if they were losing almost a third of their net worth every year.

Also, I bet the fixed costs for a franchise - even once you've pruned it back as far as you can - run about 20-30 million a year.

15-20 for the lease on the building. 5 mil for management, coaches, lawyers, and essential staff. Maybe a couple more for miscellaneous costs.

Plus the added benefits of a better economical structure in the future.

The teams that don't want a lockout are the ones who make money every year. The early months of the season could also be sacrificed because a lot of teams don't draw a lot of interest during those months.

Trevor Linden said this last month.

"I would not be surprised to see a couple months go down," Linden told TEAM 1040 in Vancouver on Wednesday. "When you talk about ownership, especially in the States, they look at October and November as really tough months for them. They're dealing with Major League Baseball and the World Series (as well as) the NFL; so their season starts in December and works through January, February, March. If they're going to miss anything, they want to miss those months." ... "I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple months lost, but I would be surprised to see it go into December."
- Two_For_Truth

didn't both sides already agree to go ahead with the season under the old CBA if a new agreement isn't reached? or was that just suggested?

Would be good to see them do something like any contract over 6 years in length is dropped down to 6 years remaining.

So if you have one of those BS contracts that pay you a dollar in the final 4 years...you'd lose those and would have to deal with the rise in cap hit.

Man, that would be a thing of beauty to watch the reactions. Burke would just be sitting back smiling.
- Juice

It'll be interesting. They have been warning them about these super long deals. And what's with the Parise and Suter deals finishing off with 1 or 2 million? I thought those were stopped after the Kovalchuk fiasco?

Gord Miller ‏@GMillerTSN

The NHL has vowed to close that loophole, and warned teams that the transition rules would be harsh, but 14 teams have at least one of them.

Maybe Burke is being smart here?
- Cfser

Burke is being too smart...He's not doing anything...

Plus the added benefits of a better economical structure in the future.

The teams that don't want a lockout are the ones who make money every year. The early months of the season could also be sacrificed because a lot of teams don't draw a lot of interest during those months.

Trevor Linden said this last month.

"I would not be surprised to see a couple months go down," Linden told TEAM 1040 in Vancouver on Wednesday. "When you talk about ownership, especially in the States, they look at October and November as really tough months for them. They're dealing with Major League Baseball and the World Series (as well as) the NFL; so their season starts in December and works through January, February, March. If they're going to miss anything, they want to miss those months." ... "I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple months lost, but I would be surprised to see it go into December."
- Two_For_Truth

And in case nobody believes what 2-4-Truth just wrote, take a look at the Leafs' schedule for the past 20 years.

You ever wonder why our first 30 games are all at home?

didn't both sides already agree to go ahead with the season under the old CBA if a new agreement isn't reached? or was that just suggested?
- Big_Lightnin

The NHLPA said they'd play without a new CBA. Not sure about the owners.

You're making the assumption that when hockey resumes, revenue will return to pre-lockout levels.

I think you're also underestimating the fixed and long term costs that don't cease just because you stop playing hockey.

And, as for long term profitability, the latest CBA didn't even come close to fixing that issue. Why the faith in it now?

With all due respect, we're sitting here debating whether or not there are hockey teams who would be better off financially not playing hockey, the one operation that the business exists to do. That probably says more about the long term viability of these franchises beyond a lock-out than anything.
- Leeman4Gilmour

You're assuming that revenue will go to 0 if they have a lockout which isn't the case. Revenue is nice but without appropriate costs to generate that revenue, it's a waste of time.

The latest CBA was written up underestimating how strong the revenues would be. The NHL generated far more revenue then they had expected to generate when the last lockout occurred. Because of the spike in revenue, the players percentage, being at 57%, forced the cap to go far higher than anybody had anticipated. If they adjust the percentage the players get in revenue, they create a more suitable environment for their weaker franchises.

There are teams losing money and playing hockey costs them a lot more money than it earns them. Having a lockout to stop the bleeding and reduce the future bleeding is in their best interest whether you want to believe it or not.

I don't think any franchises are losing quite that much. They'd be bankrupt already. considering a small-market team has a net worth of around 150 million bucks, I doubt they'd be in business long if they were losing almost a third of their net worth every year.

Also, I bet the fixed costs for a franchise - even once you've pruned it back as far as you can - run about 20-30 million a year.

15-20 for the lease on the building. 5 mil for management, coaches, lawyers, and essential staff. Maybe a couple more for miscellaneous costs.
- Leeman4Gilmour

Phoenix is.

The Stars were.

The Devils will be in the next 2 months.

Tampa was until it found a new owner.

The Thrashers were.

The Panthers are the next after the Devils.

The NHLPA said they'd play without a new CBA. Not sure about the owners.
- weirdoh

Nice way to start off the posturing by Fehr, get the fans on their side early, they have no intentions of this happening, ever.

didn't both sides already agree to go ahead with the season under the old CBA if a new agreement isn't reached? or was that just suggested?
- Big_Lightnin

It was suggested by Fehr but not agreed upon. I think that if there is a lockout, it lasts until November or December and then they would either come to a new agreement or agree to operate under the old CBA so that they don't lose an entire season.

The NHLPA said they'd play without a new CBA. Not sure about the owners.
- weirdoh

In other news, I informed my local bar I'd be willing to continue drinking there if they stopped charging me.