NHL, NHLPA meeting today

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    NHL, NHLPA meeting today

    For christ sakes just get a deal done. What bothers me is when they finally do have a deal in place, it will be one that could have been done in September, then both sides can look at all the money they lost and figure out who "won".

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bisson1. Show Bisson1's posts

    Re: NHL, NHLPA meeting today

    Yes, after the season is lost they will meet somewhere in the middle. Neither side is going to fold to the other sides demands, there's no way this thing is completed with out something close to a 50/50 compromise.  Waste of the season right when the NHL seemed to be moving in a really good direction.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: NHL, NHLPA meeting today

    "he only good news? According to some reports, a few owners are genuinely alarmed at the anger seeping through the fans over this lockout. As I mentioned a month ago, in the world we live in today social media is king. There is no place for the NHL and the owners to hide. Do you think the NHL's statement -- which blew up in the league's face -- would have circulated the way it did this year in 2004? Not a chance.

    And, for the record, the only reason I mentioned the owners and not the NHLPA above is beause right now the owners are getting 99% of the blame from the fans. And trust me, the NHLPA deserves some blame here too, but the majority of the fans completely blame Gary Bettman and the owners.

    So, once again, we're in a holding pattern. Hopefully something breaks the trend soon."

     

    If more than a few owners get nervous they could start get after the few owners that are handing Bettman the proposals that the NHLPA keep turning down. The Players have to be realistic as well when looking at new proposals.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: NHL, NHLPA meeting today

    These meetings need a change in venue.  Somewhere bleak where these negotiation teams can realize the impact of their surroundings.  I am thinking the northern slopes of Alaska.  

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: NHL, NHLPA meeting today

    I found this to be an interesting perspective.  The source is hockeyanalysis.com.  I posted the whole article but the last paragraph in bold/underline is the most intriguing aspect of the article.  

     

    Last week the NHL CBA negotations too a turn for the worse as both sides basically agreed to disagree and have temporarily walked away from negotiations.  Despite that I am still reasonable optimistic that there will not be a lock out or work stoppage anywhere close to as long as the 2004-05 lost season and I believe that any lockout will be measured in weeks and not months.  The reason is, the NHL is not losing money this time around as they were in 2004-05 and if there was a lost NHL season there would most certainly be significant lost profits at the hands of the owners.

    If you recall back in 2004 the NHL hired Arthur Levitt to take an independent look at the financial state of the NHL.  You can read the report here but basically Levitt concluded that the NHL lost $273M on $1.996B in revenues during the 2002-03 season.  He also concluded that the players salaries worked out to 75% of total revenues during the 2002-03 season, or $1.494B.  With that knowledge, let’s crunch some numbers.

    If total revenues were $1.996B and player salaries were $1.494B and total losses were $273M that would mean that non-player salary expenses totaled $775M.

    The projection for the 2012-13 season was that revenue would be about $3.2B and under the old CBA agreement players were to be owed 57% of that, or about $1.824B.  The 43% that the owners get to keep would amount to $1.326B.

    So, at this point we have the NHL owners share of league revenues totaling $1.326B and in 2002-03 non-player salary expenses totaled $775M.  Assuming no inflation in those non-player salary expenses and we have the NHL posting a league-wide profit of about $551M.  That is over a half a billion dollars in profit.  Of course, in the 10 years since 2002-03 non-player salary expenses have probably inflated as well.  I don’t know what the average inflation rate has been over the past 10 years but I suspect it is in the 2-2.5% per year range.  Now, for argument sake, lets assume non-player salary expenses inflated 1.035% per year.  This would equate to approximately a 41% increase in non-player salary expenses over the 10 year period which would estimate non-player salary expenses to be $1.093B for 2012-13.  Subtracting that from the $1.326B which is the owners share of the $3.2B in revenue and we could estimate owners profits next season to be a combined $283M, or close to $10M per team per year.  Now, not all owners will be posting a $10M profit next year, but as a whole the league will do quite well.  This is why I don’t believe the NHL owners will have the same resolve to sustain a lengthy lockout.

    In the owners latest proposal they proposed the players get a 46% share of revenues while the owners themselves get to keep 54% of the revenue.  Plugging these numbers into the equations and we could forecast the NHL owners combined profit to be closer to $635M, or about $21M per team per year.  Think about that when the owners decide to lock out the players on September 15th.  They aren’t locking out the players to minimize league losses, they are locking out the players because they would rather pad their own pocket books to the tune of $20M/year instead of a mere $10M/yr.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: NHL, NHLPA meeting today

    If I own 1/30th of a $3.2B industry, I want more than $10M per year.


    Honestly, Jeremy Jacobs should make more from the Bruins than 9x of what Shawn Thornton does.

    Can you imagine Jacobs making less than twice from the Bruins what Seguin does?

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from lambda13. Show lambda13's posts

    Re: NHL, NHLPA meeting today

    NAS, thats an interesting way to look at it.

    Sorry if this is a stupid question but do revenues include ticket sales, parking fees, vendor fees (food and drinks), advertising, merchandise, partnerships, and sponsors?

    Over the last 10 years inflation has been as follows:

    2002- 1.59%
    2003- 2.27%
    2004- 2.68%
    2005- 3.39%
    2006- 3.24%
    2007- 2.85%
    2008- 3.85%
    2009- (-.34%)
    2010- 1.64%
    2011- 3.16%

    That's going to e well over 2.5% average and that's per year. From looking at the numbers it seems that the owners might be struggling moreso than we would believe.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from seobrien. Show seobrien's posts

    Re: NHL, NHLPA meeting today

    It seems that both side are more interested in winning the war than compromising and having a full season. Can't they just say 50/50 and be done with it?

    nahhh...that is too simple.

     

    Even if/when the players give more back, the Columbus', Stars, Yotes, and Islanders will still be welfare babies. Until that is sorted out (by the owners) nothing will change much.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: NHL, NHLPA meeting today

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If I own 1/30th of a $3.2B industry, I want more than $10M per year.


    Honestly, Jeremy Jacobs should make more from the Bruins than 9x of what Shawn Thornton does.

    Can you imagine Jacobs making less than twice from the Bruins what Seguin does?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    No.  First, the article you're commenting on, is about "average" gross profit.  Jacobs team makes much, much more than that average.

    Secondly, there are dozens of businesses, in dozens of categories all across America, where the owner doesn't make as much money...as his best employee.  That can be summed up in 1 word.;  "Equity".  Pick whatever number you want.  The amount the owner takes out each year is really meaningless.  The bottom line is the equity of the company.  JJ's Bruins are worth 400 or 500 million.  He's a billionaire, not someone 9x richer than Thorton.

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: NHL, NHLPA meeting today

    If the team is worth $200M, a 5% ROI is still poor.

    I mentioned nothing of how much Jacobs was worth compared to Thornton.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: NHL, NHLPA meeting today

    In response to seobrien's comment:

    Even if/when the players give more back, the Columbus', Stars, Yotes, and Islanders will still be welfare babies. Until that is sorted out (by the owners) nothing will change much.


    Nope

     

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: NHL, NHLPA meeting today

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If the team is worth $200M, a 5% ROI is still poor.

    I mentioned nothing of how much Jacobs was worth compared to Thornton.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    sorry,.... but wrong again.  ROI means "return on investment".  what the B's are "worth", has no correlation to ROI

    Based on the math provided, JJ's ROI exceeds 100% per annum.  He paid 10 mil for the team, and on top of the ROI, he's sitting on an additional 225 million profit.  Any financial comparisons to Sean Thorton are ridiculous.

    And btw, 5% ROI's are not bad at all

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: NHL, NHLPA meeting today

    Stevegm, I think it's funny that you are trying to educate me on business. 

    If a team is worth $200M and it's only bringing back 5% of that, the owner of the team would be better off selling it and investing that money somewhere else.  The return on investment would be greater than 5% in many cases. 

    If you'd be happy with 5%, I think that's great for you, but 5% is pretty poor for anyone with any business sense.  I have a hint for you: Buy Apple.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: NHL, NHLPA meeting today

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Stevegm, I think it's funny that you are trying to educate me on business. 

    If a team is worth $200M and it's only bringing back 5% of that, the owner of the team would be better off selling it and investing that money somewhere else.  The return on investment would be greater than 5% in many cases. 

    If you'd be happy with 5%, I think that's great for you, but 5% is pretty poor for anyone with any business sense.  I have a hint for you: Buy Apple.

     

    I'm not trying to educate you about business....You're the one who introduced this horsesh*t.  Merely pointing out the flaws in your argument. 

    You're perfectly entitled to think the players are the problem here, but...you keep  bringing up either illogical, or factually incorrect reasoning to support your opinion, and in order to save face, you just roll off in a new direction every post or 2.  Once again, please source the definition of ROI if you don't believe me.   Based on your accounting, JJ's is over 100% per year with the B's, plus he's building equity.   Therefore .....your point.....isn't one.

    You're also failing to mention other revenue streams, Jacobs receives, that are directly proportional to the Boston Bruins.

    Anyway, this is all BS.  It doesn't really matter.  It only serves to implode any reasonable notion that there may be an ounce of sensibility in what you wrote above.

    Millions of Americans aren't getting 5% on their investments in these tough economic times.  In fact if you've read a paper in the last few years, you'll notice millions have lost 70+ percent of their investment portfolio's....not that it has anything to do with what we're discussing,..but....since you brought it up..

     

    [/QUOTE]


     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from lambda13. Show lambda13's posts

    Re: NHL, NHLPA meeting today

    NAS, return on investment implies that JJ is putting up $200 million a year and getting $210 million back. That's false. He is seeing revenues that happen to be about 5% of the net worth of the Bruins, not a return on an investment. It would be more correct to call it a rate of return, but I don't think that is still 100% accurate. The only time that ROI would come into play would be the first year he owned the Bruins. He doesn't have to keep re-buying the Bruins every year.

    Not to mention the fact that when JJ bought the B's he probably paid no where near $200 million.

     

Share