Who's side are you on?

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

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    I don't get your point Red.  There are many different accounting methods used by the 30 teams in the NHL.  I'm saying you can't base a collective agreement on something that has that many variables.  2 businesses with identical incomes, and identical expenses can legally show wildly different profit numbers at the end of the year, and one or both may show a loss, while actually turning a profit.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from JWensink. Show JWensink's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    " I think what the profit numbers tell you is that the owners in general are not making money hand over fist, and it's as flawed an argument to base perception of the owners' collective state on the 5-6 teams that print their own money (Toronto, Montreal, New York, Boston, Detroit...Philly - notice anything?)"
    -bb007

    "A 30 team NHL also dilutes the talent pool"
    -bb007

     "These were multi-million dollar business risks that they owners took and without which there would be fewer jobs and more of a buyers market for NHL talent. Debt service doesn't come off of the revenue projections."
    -bb007

    Bookboy on his game

    The die was already cast- both sides wanted their grubby hands on some coin at all cost
    now it's time to pay the tab, and it won't be the last 

    btw - this new site sukz bigtime...I noticed they got the advertising figured out though



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

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    Since Red just brought it up, lets have a look at the Coyotes, and take a glimpse at the business of hockey for a moment.  Many here know a bit about business, and we all know the fundamental reason folks buy a business,.... to make money.  Habitual losers, are worthless.  We see it in every city and town in North America.  In pretty much any of these communities, 10 mil will get you a pretty stable company to run, and a sustainable income that will match your risk.  You see very few owners of companies worth 10 mil....that aren't multi-millionaires.
    The Coyotes are a disaster, no one is arguing that, yet the league figures they're worth around 170 million.  Forbes believes that may be about 30 mil on the high side.  Still...140 million, and there's a good chance, the league would walk away from an offer in this neighborhood.

    If things are this bad, how in the world is this franchise worth even 140 million.  Does anyone here have any idea what can be bought for 140 million....the profitability that can be achieved with an investment of 140 million????

    Is it possible there's more here than what we're seeing?  

    What about the big dog teams?  If a 43 percent revenue share was signed off by the players tomorrow, at least a dozen owners would see their equity jump in some cases hundreds of millions.....just with the stroke of a pen.

    And for those who claim the players haven't "given" much since negotiations started, remember the drop kick delivered by the league to start things.  The league set the tone, and the players are forced to play the same game.

    Public perception will play a role on how this thing plays out, and it will also impact how long any impasse will last.  I would urge all fans to give this some thought, make a thoughtful choice on which side you support(and be willing to change it)and not be afraid to voice your opinion. 
    It will make a difference.





     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    steve,
    I recall reading that Forbes uses a baseline frmula for calculating team values. That is to say that each NHL team has an inherrent value based on it's franchise agreement - the value of having membership in the league. The value then goes up from there based on the economics and assets of specific teams. In the current rankings the Coyotes were at $134 million, the year prior they were $135 million.
    To illustrate to a degree how they calculate this and how volatile their ranking system may be two seasons ago the Thrashers were valued at $134 million. Forbes adjusted that value to $164 million prior to them playing a game in Winnipeg. Why? How did they make the assessment of $30 million in additional value simply due to the move and before the completion of the season? I don't know.

    As for my comments about profits, my point is that the last CBA, the one that expires in 11 days, the NHL and NHLPA came to an agreement on accounting procedures to be used by the league and individual teams - there's a standard method of income and revenue reporting, particularly in regards to HRR, that each team must abide by. Could individual franchises fudge the books a bit? Sure, but for the most part there is more consitancy between the teams accounting procedures than there would be between 30 other individual businesses. Why? Because they're all bound by the same Collective Bargaining Agreement and a part of that agreement pertains to bokkeeping.

    That's why the residents of Glendale can look at the $50 million and know where it went and why. Because there's a certain measure of consistancy (I won't say reliability) in how NHL franchises report operating income.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    BTW, I know that those profit reports don't include side profits that owners get from related busineses - none of the teams report that as they are not required to, so the profits aren't complete, but they are consistant in their manner of reporting and what is reported.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    I keep getting posts denied because of  "banned words".  
    The description is    -s       every time.  I've had to delete several.
    What's up with that?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    In response to stevegms comment:

    I keep getting posts denied because of  "banned words".  
    The description is    -s       every time.  I've had to delete several.
    What's up with that?



    Me too and I think I figured it out.  It is the apostrophe at the top of a reply comment (I think)

    Like, "in response to Fletcher1s post", except with the apostrophe,  Remove it and it is okay...right?  I just took the one out above...hope it works...
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from NeelyOrrBourque. Show NeelyOrrBourque's posts

    Re: Who's side are you on?

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    I keep getting posts denied because of  "banned words".  
    The description is   every time.  I've had to delete several.
    What's up with that?


    Yea I gave up on a bunch of other post for the identical thing. Especially when I couldn't find the dam  "s"    to change. BDCDottie & the gang really messed this site up! Getting very irrating to say the least. 
    BTW- great post Steve & Red. I'm actually learning a lot. 
     

Share