There will be a strike

[Arachnid]

The only thing you avoid is the facts.

Players are making more than ever in the hisory of the game.

They have no risk ( other than injury which they insure against with one of those big businesses you hate so much )

They suffer no losses

They ALL negoiate their own salaries via their own stooge, agents

As to Phx....the business is that good they CAN"T find any one to buy the club. Why not ?? owners can off set losses etc etc etc. well no one wants the franchise and a number of other teams to for that manner. The NHL is running out of prospective or future owners. Edomonton is marginal, you conviently forget that only a few years ago they were going to leave town If they don't get the arena it might be just the last straw. Citizens can say no and the NHL will be gone the next day, it's their choice....

Owners do suffer losses.

Ever think your view is upsetting to others, two way street buddy

Tell me something phred, my penile friend...do you feel stronger or weaker in your ignorance?

That's what I have been preaching from the pulpit since get go. Player AND owners are to blame here. So stop you incessant whining about agents and look at their counterparts...the GMs.

Both do what players and owners tell them to do.

Thems the facts jack.

[Arachnid]

Yeah baby, tell it like it is Mr. President

You know, look. I've got to say, because we've had an NBA lockout, we've had an NFL lockout during the course of my presidency, the president of the United States shouldn't have to get involved in a sports lockout. My message to owners and to players is, you guys make a lot of money and you make a lot of money on the backs of fans, so do right by your fans. You can figure out how to spread out a bunch of revenue that you're bringing in, but do right by the people who support you. And I shouldn't have to be involved in a dispute between really wealthy players and even wealthier owners. They should be able to settle this themselves. And remember who it is that's putting all that money in their pockets.

[Fred]

Tell me something phred, my penile friend...do you feel stronger or weaker in your ignorance?

Disgust, hey you asked

[Strangelove]

Thems the facts jack.

[Fred]

To reference a few facts

Interesting article

And that, folks, is why NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr has found a different foe in Bettman than he ever did in Major League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig.

Bettman isn’t any tougher or smarter than Selig. His owners are just more desperate and have far less to lose.

Selig never had 10 owners in the red, and another four or five whose profits come nowhere close to justifying the financial investment they’ve made on their various teams.

Take the St. Louis Blues as an example. They’re part of the Original 12, with a relatively new downtown arena, a Cup-contending young team, and no local NBA team to compete against.

We have heard it said that the Blues franchise has never turned a profit since joining the NHL in 1967. It is impossible to verify that, but for the record, the Blues are an established NHL brand that Forbes magazine recently valued at just $130 million — dead last in the NHL.

The St. Louis Dispatch says the Blues lost $20 million last season. How will a slightly lower salary cap and more restrictive players contracting rules turn that into a sound investment?

Even in Edmonton, ownership continually questions that city’s viability as a profitable hockey market while negotiating millions of tax dollars for a new rink. If that is true, and Edmonton isn’t a sure bet to put down some financial roots, then what about 15 other markets?

[Arachnid]

To reference a few facts

Interesting article

And that, folks, is why NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr has found a different foe in Bettman than he ever did in Major League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig.

Bettman isn’t any tougher or smarter than Selig. His owners are just more desperate and have far less to lose.

Selig never had 10 owners in the red, and another four or five whose profits come nowhere close to justifying the financial investment they’ve made on their various teams.

Take the St. Louis Blues as an example. They’re part of the Original 12, with a relatively new downtown arena, a Cup-contending young team, and no local NBA team to compete against.

We have heard it said that the Blues franchise has never turned a profit since joining the NHL in 1967. It is impossible to verify that, but for the record, the Blues are an established NHL brand that Forbes magazine recently valued at just $130 million — dead last in the NHL.

The St. Louis Dispatch says the Blues lost $20 million last season. How will a slightly lower salary cap and more restrictive players contracting rules turn that into a sound investment?

Even in Edmonton, ownership continually questions that city’s viability as a profitable hockey market while negotiating millions of tax dollars for a new rink. If that is true, and Edmonton isn’t a sure bet to put down some financial roots, then what about 15 other markets?

The facts?

How about under Buttman and his greedy ownership inner circle they took a game into markets that had no interest in hockey in the first place.
They thought they could 'grow' the game south of the border.
Why? To sign a lucrative TV contract.
That was the business plan.
It didn't work.
Now, because of ego we have teams in non-hockey US markets struggling. While places like Kitchener-Waterloo, Markham and Quebec City would thrive they do not have chance because US owners don't think they can sell a game with teams called the New Berlin Social Engineers or the French Quarters
A bad business plan is a bad business plan.
Any dumbass could tell you that. Do your research, have a solid financial strategy.
If your team is struggling them move it to a better market. It happens all the time in professional sports (Grizzlies etc.).
To stay in a market where you are losing money is just plain stupid (not to mentions supporters of this make me wanna puke).

[Fred]

Hey Spidey I agree with that, bring on contraction. It does mean the chance of a National TV contract in the US is flushed but I could handle that. The question is would the PA want to loose all those job, they should be happy there's 30 teams now. Do the PA want to have a US National TV contract That was Betteman for you, more jobs and he has signed a NBC contract.. it all helps the PA ???

Moving teams to Canada does little to expand into the prime market does nothing. Having a team in Saskatoon is not a good move. Listening one day to a US media guy, he was saying the drop off in attendance is noticable when a Cdn team is playing.

[dangler]

To reference a few facts

Selig never had 10 owners in the red, and another four or five whose profits come nowhere close to justifying the financial investment they’ve made on their various teams.

The facts?

How about under Buttman and his greedy ownership inner circle they took a game into markets that had no interest in hockey in the first place.
They thought they could 'grow' the game south of the border.
Why? To sign a lucrative TV contract.
That was the business plan.
It didn't work.

The NHL better watch out if they keep fucking their fans over in this over-saturated north american sports market they'll be wishing for the good-ol-days when franchise relocation and contraction WAS an option.

Just cancel the season already.it's ruined anyways

[Fred]

The NHL better watch out if they keep fucking their fans over in this over-saturated north american sports market they'll be wishing for the good-ol-days when franchise relocation and contraction WAS an option.

Just cancel the season already.it's ruined anyways

Isn't that the truth. They're running out of mugs ( oops I mean potential franchisees ) if there's 10-12 teams loosing money it means there's 10-12 owners wish they could move on and put their money into some thing that makes money. Heck I get 6-7% on my investments why should they tie up $150-$200 million and be getting negative return.

I hope they do pull the plug and let the season go I think I've said I have a long sunny holiday booked in Feb.

The option for Betteman is either hold out until they straighten up the teams in trouble or impose a huge equalization payment amongst the owners ....if the equalization is too onerous it will maybe add a few more teams to the running a deficit

[Strangelove]

The facts?

How about under Buttman and his greedy ownership inner circle they took a game into markets that had no interest in hockey in the first place.
They thought they could 'grow' the game south of the border.
Why? To sign a lucrative TV contract.
That was the business plan.
It didn't work.

I dunno, the NHL is 4th in TV revenue, right where they should be no?

I don't think anyone expected them to move up the ladder.

Bettman did well when he first came in by landing that $31mil-per deal with Fox

(up from the previous $5.5mil-per from the American networks).

Then it was on to ESPN+ABC at $120mil-per.

Yes we all remember when, 7 years ago, ABC dropped out and ESPN declined their $60mil-per option.

But the NHL found another network at the time and is receiving $200mil-per from NBC at the time being.

None of that includes money from CBC, TSN, NHL Network of course...

I think the game is growing down south, ever so slowly, but I think they expected that.

Gary is doing well in fixing it so that various American teams win the Cup each and every year.

"Makin it work, takes a little longer, making it work, takes a little time... "

Give him credit buddy!

places like Kitchener-Waterloo, Markham and Quebec City would thrive

Remember when neither Winnipeg nor Quebec could support an NHL Team?

62-cent dollar?

Remember the Canadian Assistance Plan?

(Canucks, Flames, Oilers, and Senators all receiving money from AMERICAN teams)

Well the 62-cent dollar will be back eventually.

Just sayin.

If your team is struggling them move it to a better market.

Like Atlanta to Winnipeg?

Relax buds, Gary may be evil but he knows what he's doing!

Plus the pwners are on the verge of crushing the players like bugs, it's all good....

[Strangelove]

Isn't that the truth. They're running out of mugs ( oops I mean potential franchisees ) if there's 10-12 teams loosing money it means there's 10-12 owners wish they could move on and put their money into some thing that makes money. Heck I get 6-7% on my investments why should they tie up $150-$200 million and be getting negative return.

I hope they do pull the plug and let the season go I think I've said I have a long sunny holiday booked in Feb.

The option for Betteman is either hold out until they straighten up the teams in trouble or impose a huge equalization payment amongst the owners ....if the equalization is too onerous it will maybe add a few more teams to the running a defici

The average team earns a solid profit, no?

Even more-so after the new CBA amirite?

More revenue-sharing coming....

Then there's franchise values.

[Fred]

Isn't that the truth. They're running out of mugs ( oops I mean potential franchisees ) if there's 10-12 teams loosing money it means there's 10-12 owners wish they could move on and put their money into some thing that makes money. Heck I get 6-7% on my investments why should they tie up $150-$200 million and be getting negative return.

I hope they do pull the plug and let the season go I think I've said I have a long sunny holiday booked in Feb.

The option for Betteman is either hold out until they straighten up the teams in trouble or impose a huge equalization payment amongst the owners ....if the equalization is too onerous it will maybe add a few more teams to the running a defici

The average team earns a solid profit, no?

Even more-so after the new CBA amirite?

More revenue-sharing coming....

Then there's franchise values.

I don't know if the average teams earns a healthy profit ? I some times listen to Tom Mayenknecht on his "the business of sports." He covers the financial side of sports, not just hockey. His statement was 10-12 NHL teams make a loss so the next few are probably close to the break even. In which case I think we're left to believe the top teams make good money the rest make low profit to losses. So if you average it out does the high profits even the pendulum ? The problem is there is only one NY City, one Toronto etc. So changing franchises does not mean new franchises make money like the Rangers. You have to remember MSG is not just hockey it's a concert hall, NBA and has it's own successful TV station. No one is going to duplicate that so it does skew the average concept a bit. From what I understand Winnipeg will still have trouble making a go of it and who can explain away St L. Phx was a good franchise and then the new location simply screwed it up almost over night. Ottawa is out of town and they struggled to fill the place. It's not as easy as some would suggest. Put a team in Hamilton does not automatically mean it's a automatic to be a money maker. That's simply conjecture. I don't know about you but i used to sit in the Pacific Coloseum and it was 50% empty and close to being moved. So all this talk about relocating as though it was an automatic winner is drivel.

Rather than buy a NHL franchise just investing your down payment you can do a lot better by simply investing. Think if you invested in gold 10 years ago would that be better or worse than buying a NHL team.

As to franchise values that much like real estate you can say it's worth what ever you want but until you find a buyer who is willing to plonk down the moeny it's a dream. Banks don't take note of Forbes they do their own research and extend credit in a much more conservative manner. If I were a banker I sure as heck would have to be convinced to ectend credit to any one buying a franchise. Taht's why Phx is having so much trouble selling. Heck the guy thats looking to take over was looking for some one to partner him for $20 mill ....he couldn't find any one !! I think many posters take a simplistic view of franchises as though it was like falling off a log

[Strangelove]

Rather than buy a NHL franchise just investing your down payment you can do a lot better by simply investing. Think if you invested in gold 10 years ago would that be better or worse than buying a NHL team.

Gold eh, why not copper Mr Hindsight?

In 2004 the average NHL franchise was worth $163mil.

In 2012 the average NHL franchise is worth $282mil.

In the same period total NHL revenues have gone from $2.2mil to $3.3mil.

In the same period the average NHL team has gone from losing $3.2mil to making $8.3mil (net operating income).

Those are pretty healthy numbers.

If I could buy some shares of dat dere going forward, speculating on a 50/50 split, I'd buy me some.

All numbers are from Forbes cuz hey that's all we've got (where do you think your pal on the radio gets his numbers from - Forbes or his bottom?).

If I were a banker I sure as heck would have to be convinced to ectend credit to any one buying a franchise. Taht's why Phx is having so much trouble selling. Heck the guy thats looking to take over was looking for some one to partner him for $20 mill ....he couldn't find any one !!

Well now that the lease package is in place, Jamison is buying in at $170mil:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=410428

I think many posters take a simplistic view of franchises as though it was like falling off a log

Well I'm not one of em:

viewtopic.php?p=145502#p145502

Leipold put up $9.6mil and walked out with $39.6mil, all the while complaining about how much money he lost.

And if the scam with Balsillie worked, it would've been: in with $9.6mil, out with $66.6mil.

Six months later he bought the Minnesota Wild

... where he continues to complain about how much money he is losing while signing Suter + Parise!

But hey Freddy, you believe whatever you want big guy!

[Fred]

I will and you believe what ever you want

and by the way i was in gold 10 years ago, my problem was I became impatient but I held in with energy and one stock I still hold went from $12 to $50 .... not bad eh

[Strangelove]

one stock I still hold went from $12 to $50 .... not bad eh

Hmmm Toronto Maple Leaves went from $280mil in 2005 to $1bil today... not bad.