PDA

View Full Version : The spiral had to end



Scout
02-16-2005, 09:36 AM
I posted this on another board and got alot of reaction to it and wondering what some posters here thought:

Salaries had to peek before teams went broke. I have dug up the salaries of the top five players in 2003/2004 compared to the top five in 1993/1994.

1993/1994
Eric Lindros $3,500,000.00
Steve Yzerman $3,214,520.00
Mario Lemieux $3,000,000.00
Wayne Gretzky $3,000,000.00
Patrick Roy $2,659,300.00

( Total ) $15,373,820.00

2003/2004
Jaromir Jagr $11,000,000.00
Peter Forsberg $11,000,000.00
Pavel Bure $10,000,000.00
Keith Tkachuk $10,000,000.00
Nick Lidstrom $10,000,000.00

( Total ) $52,000,000.00

In 10 years the top five have jumped from $15.3 million to $52 million. That is a big jump. Ticket prices can only go so high before people quit going. Right now as it is most season tickets are corporate. The average family can no longer afford to go. So when is to much to much?

There is no way anyone can tell me that Jagr, who earned more last year than Lemiuex, Gretzky and Roy put together, has done more for hockey than Gretzky and Lemieux. And remember these wages do not include endorsements. I realize the owners have caused the skyrocketing wages, but they have come to realize it is no longer viable. Personally i think wages have bottom out. When will players see that to the average fan the N.H.L. is no longer a family game but a big business without taking the fans into consideration. I think players have lost their love for the game and have been taken over by greed.

Scout

IceMan
02-16-2005, 10:33 AM
I both agree and disagree with you.

First of all, do the same thing for basketball, and you'll really get an eye opener. 18 Year Olds geting 90 Million dollar contracts and all they do is talk smack, hang with their posse, and serve as unbelievably bad role models for our kids .... but I digress.

I think that players, just like any "employee" want as much as they can get (you'd never turn down a raise would you?), and will take whatever's offered (Would you turn down an offer to triple your salary?). Have they asked for the moon and then some? Yes. Does it end up hurting the game by making it affordable only for the independantly wealthy to enjoy ? Yes.

Are the players to blame for this? Not entirely.

Nobody has a gun to the owners heads requiring them to pay these salaries. What stops an owner (or all of them) from saying "NO"? Their own greed, their own egos, and their own incopmetance.

I own my own company (really, I do). We gross about 300k a year in sales, and I spend about 50k a year in marketing. If my best employee says to me "I need to be making $200k a year, or I'm walking" ... what do I do? For the good of my business, I have to tell him to etiher live with the $100k I'm paying him because I can't afford his demand, or let him go. Since I want to be able to eat and pay my own bills, I'd let him go. The NHL Owners? They'll pay him the $200k, and another $25k if he can maintain the same level of performance.

The owners are morons. They're the ones that have allowed this to happen. Did the players take advantage? Abso-frickiin-loooootely. But give any 8 year old an open box of chocolates, and he's going to eat the whole damned thing. It's the parents fault for opening it up in the first place.

grumphy
02-16-2005, 11:40 AM
Good summary, I agree totally, it dosen't take a genius to figure out that you can't pay out over 75% of your income on salaries. I have sAid from the begining the owners want the players to accept an agreement that will protect them from thier own stupidity. Are the the players greedy at this poine----damn right-----a pox on both thier houses already

HAF
02-16-2005, 03:55 PM
Just curious.... I've never been to an NHL game. Whats an Oilers ticket cost these days... Well, I guess I should say what did they cost last year?

Fight Guy
02-16-2005, 04:26 PM
All I know is front row seats in Calgary are over $100 I believe. I think thats we payed two years ago.

Scout
02-16-2005, 04:29 PM
Well from what i found it is $15.00 to $125.00 U.S. per game. I imagine the $15.00 ones are in the nose bleed section where the players look like toy soldiers. I did find season ticket prices as follows:

Gold: $5,247.00
Silver: $4,587.00
Exec: $3,310.00
Exec.Ter:$3,081.00
Terrace: $2,228.00

I did have the priveledge to attend an Oiler game in one of their luxury suites. I asked the Matre'D ( each suite has their own ) how much that particular suite was as i got it gratus, she informed me $5,000.00 per game and $130,000.00 for a season. Not sure if she new what she was talking about but i was glad someone else picked up my tab.

Scout

ROADKING
02-16-2005, 04:53 PM
Scout

I think that figure she gave you was pretty close !...I had heard that figure before ....





Well from what i found it is $15.00 to $125.00 U.S. per game. I imagine the $15.00 ones are in the nose bleed section where the players look like toy soldiers. I did find season ticket prices as follows:

Gold: $5,247.00
Silver: $4,587.00
Exec: $3,310.00
Exec.Ter:$3,081.00
Terrace: $2,228.00

I did have the priveledge to attend an Oiler game in one of their luxury suites. I asked the Matre'D ( each suite has their own ) how much that particular suite was as i got it gratus, she informed me $5,000.00 per game and $130,000.00 for a season. Not sure if she new what she was talking about but i was glad someone else picked up my tab.

Scout

Furback
02-16-2005, 04:55 PM
Bettman is the worst commish in the history of any sport. players salaries have sky rocketed. revenues have dropped. the game has become a systeme driven product do to teams with lack of tallent trying to compete. the fact of the matter is Bettman and the owners have done nothing they have not negotiated the have demanded and now the nhl may be dead.

RunTheGoalie
02-16-2005, 06:15 PM
Revenues have dropped? Since when?

Revenues have grown every single year since Bettman was hired, while Bettman also got the NHL American national TV deals that it lacked for 20 years.

The_Vulk
02-16-2005, 07:25 PM
Revenue has grown with Bettman as Commissioneer, to the point of over $2 BILLION a year.

The fact that salaries has increased at a greater rate than income shows that something had to happen.

That 24% rolback on existing contracts offered by the PA PROVES they know they are a bunch of overpaid cry babies.

They want free market system.

Well guess what, you have it.

You can play in the NHL, and make an average of over $1.5 MILLION a year, or you can 'stay in shape', stealing a job while playing in Europe for one-tenth that amount.

1/10th!

No wonder they don't trust the numbers of the NHL. It is obvious, they FAILED math.

Furback
02-17-2005, 03:34 AM
Bettman is the worst commisioner in any sport ever he has done nothing for hockey except destroy it. he want players to fix the mess that he made with bad franchise location horrible markating and just a lack of buisnees sence. I think both sides are at fault to blame one side is a little shot sighted but the facts are Bettman has done a terrible job.

Furback
02-17-2005, 01:47 PM
Bettman has no new revenue streams the only reason his revenues were good was expantion fees where do you think they got this 400,000,000 war chest. Bettman has showed no abilaty to bring in revenue other than expantion fees and what horrible markets he picked Bettman has ruined nhl hockey.

The_Vulk
02-17-2005, 06:26 PM
Both sides did a terrible job.

Just look at the last two CBA's.

Which is why, this next one has to FIX the financial problems.

The love of the game has become the love of the GREED the game makes.

How much negotiating has been going on in the months before the 'drop-dead' date?

Which is why, when the new CBA is in place, it should also have a provision that both front-men must leave the sport. The media reported egos between the two and their negotiating styles, and their lack of dialogue, is not what the sport needs from those two positions.

Well, this season is done.

The PA, having already lost the PR battle years ago, could get fans back on thier good sides, by making a deal in the coming month. Not in September. Not in November 2005. This SPRING!

Otherwise, the PA should keep its players in Europe. And let the NHL begin play with the best available players. The juniors and semi-pro/minor leagues are full of players whom should be given the opportunity of a life-time, and play in the NHL.

As we known, by being fans of the WHL/CHL, watching people whom enjoy the game, and play hard hockey all the time, is better than some overpaid athlete with lackluster play most nights.

RunTheGoalie
02-17-2005, 07:47 PM
Bettman has no new revenue streams the only reason his revenues were good was expantion fees where do you think they got this 400,000,000 war chest. Bettman has showed no abilaty to bring in revenue other than expantion fees and what horrible markets he picked Bettman has ruined nhl hockey.

With all due respect, you have no idea what you are talking about.

The $300 million warchest was built up over five years as all teams put $2 million a year into the pool in preperation for this lockout.

The expansion revenue ran out in 2001. Despite this, NHL revenues continued to climb. In 1993-94, revenues were $500 million. In 2003-04, revenues were $2.1 billion.

Consider your argument. If expansion revenue was the only means of bringing in revenues that Bettman had, you are trying to argue that six teams added since Bettman was hired (two of which Bettman had nothing to do with) led to about $10 billion in revenues over the past six years or so?

Are you really arguing that the Ducks, Panthers, Wild, Blue Jackets, Predators and Thrashers paid $1.7 billion each to enter this league?

Of those, Bettman only had any impact in the last four, as the Ducks and Panthers were selected by a committee formed before Bettman was hired.

The Wild and Blue Jackets have been massive successes, while the Thrashers were entered by AOL-Time-Warner. Not even you would have turned that money down.

Furback
02-17-2005, 10:33 PM
Are you kidding hockey is in the worse shape it has ever been in that is fact Bettman has done nothing for the nhl the nhl was rated 5th worst buisness and if i dont know what im talking about prove me wrong dont just say no your wrong. Bettmans league lost how many million? and yet you feel everything is good? what a joke I cant believe people are such sheep the bottom line is the nhl was and has declined since bettman has taken over. If you think Bettman has done a good job you are insane. revenue means nothing if you spend more than you make the owners have created the problem and a cap will not help 15 teams exspecialy a 42 million cap i think the nhlpa should have signed the deal then in 5 years you could all see a cap is not a fix all. Back to the war chest i have went to 5 reports all are diffrent about the war chest so im pretty sure you dont know anything about it either. the bottom line is this league that lost 273 million dollars last year saved up 300,000,000 million doesnt make alot of sence how broke can you be with 300,000,000 million in the bank.

RunTheGoalie
02-18-2005, 11:00 AM
I never said Bettman has done a good job. I said you are out to lunch with your excuses.

Truth be told, Bettman has pretty much been irrelevent. Most of the apparent degredation of the game is a function of the evolution of hockey itself rather than anything the comissioner has done.

Also, I believe I have proven you wrong. If you believe that expansion money is the only reason why revenues have grown by over 300% since Bettman was hired, then you are arguing that the last six expansion teams payed over $1.7 billion each to get into this league.

If you can defend that argument, please do. Dont try to dodge that argument by changing the subject.

Or would you prefer to just throw more personal insults around via private messenger? In response to your PM, how much intelligence do you think it takes to insult someone in PM rather than defend yourself in this thread?

Furback
02-18-2005, 12:06 PM
what new revenues has he gained? you seem to be looking at the books so i guess you could tell me? I also said he has trouble generating new revenue that is true unless you can show me proof of this. I just think this is a pointless arguement Bettman ruined hockey even if this lockout didnt happen Bettman still would have ruined hockey. Im not even mad about the lockout the egos of both Bettman and goodenow are massive they both are equally to blame i just dont like the way Bettman handles things he does not love or understand hockey. Bettman stands to make 1,000,000 bonus if a cap goes through so im sure he has the fans best intrests at heart.

RunTheGoalie
02-18-2005, 12:40 PM
How did Bettman ruin hockey? You are the intelligent one who has "forgotten more about hockey than I will ever know." If that is indeed the case, you should have no problems expanding on that statement.

Like I have said, Bettman has been largely irrelevent.

He did get the NHL the largest national TV deal it ever had (Fox) - the first US national deal that the NHL had in 20 years. However, one could easily explain that as being a function of Gretzky making hockey en vogue in Los Angeles, coupled with a winning Rangers team leading to a short term burst of popularity in the US.

Expansion revenue did play a part, even if it had an expiry date. However, the expansion to 30 teams was planned as far back as the 80s, and the league had already expanded to 24 teams, and the bidding process was nearly complete for the 25th and 26th teams when Bettman took over.

The new building trend, obviously. I believe something like 24 teams are in new or renovated buildings in the last 15 years or so.

Inflation, obviously. Ticket prices are up about 40% over the last decade.

RunTheGoalie
02-18-2005, 12:58 PM
Also, if you knew as much about hockey as you claim, you would know that the $1 million bonus claim was a fabrication.

Harley Hotchkiss debunked that lie in the Calgary Herald two weeks ago, stating that he negotiated the contract personally, and that Bettman specifically requested no such bonus so his integrity in this matter could not be questioned.

The writer who fabricated that story, Bruce Dowbiggin, tried to defend himself on Fan960 the same day, and his excuse for lying was pretty much "Most CEOs in the buisness community have such bonuses, so I felt safe in assuming Bettman did too."

As for Gary Bettman not understanding hockey, you might be surprised...

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCM/is_8_31/ai_102103257


The Board of Governors quickly realized that Bettman--a big hockey enthusiast--was their ideal candidate. And on February 1, 1993, Bettman became the NHL's first--and so far only--commissioner.

Bettman first discovered hockey as a youngster growing up on Long Island where he rooted for the New York Islanders. His interest in the sport intensified during his college years. "Hockey took on a much more significant place in my rooting interest when I went to Cornell," Bettman says. "Cornell was a collegiate hockey powerhouse, and I was a season ticket holder each of my four years there, which necessitated sleeping out a couple of nights just to get tickets."

Furback
02-18-2005, 02:09 PM
Bettman did ruin hockey he force feed markets hockey that had no intrest he teams also moved to terrible markets the fox deal didnt last he has done nothing. he has made silly rule changes that have hurt hockey he is a joke with a massive ego ask any person who is in media or sports and the majoraty of people will say he has done a poor job and should be fired. the league is watered down but again im sure thats not his fault he is blamless in this whole mess. Bottom line the entertainment value has dropped since bettman has taken over there has been 2 work stoppages and salaries have balloned unbelievable since he has ran the league. Though im sure you will have some excuse saying bettman has no fault Run the Goalie are you sleeping with Bettman.

Billy Blade
02-18-2005, 02:28 PM
Obviously neither of you are going to convince the other, so perhaps it should just be dropped now. It's just going back and forth with your opinions but not being backed up by and links to factual information proving either side of the argument. Keep personal insults out of it as well please.

Personally I think Bettman has done an awful job over his tenure, but I blame both work stoppages on Bob Goodenow and not Bettman. Just my two cents.

Furback
02-18-2005, 02:35 PM
Bottom line Billy is the proofs in the pooding and the nhl is in huge trouble it is well known. Bettman is in charge of the nhl so he should take a huge chunk of the blame. One thing i can say about Bettman is he should be a polatition cause he has done a great job on the pr part i give him credit for that but as far as running the nhl well he has failed terribly.

RunTheGoalie
02-18-2005, 06:10 PM
Billy - I'm not trying to convince Furback. It was obvious from the outset that that is impossible. I'm asking him to convince me. Thus far, the only thing he has provided are run-on sentences and personal attacks.

Furback - Do you mean to tell me that Bettman had exclusive control over all of those things?

Bettman "force fed hockey to markets that didn't want them?" You mean markets like Minnesota and Columbus? Atlanta was a mistake, but when AOL-Time-Warner comes to you and says "I want a team", you give them a team.

He moved to terrible markets like Denver? As bad as Phoenix has been, the Coyotes have drawn more fans than Winnipeg ever did. Not to mention that there was nobody willing to own a team in Winnipeg.

I'll also point out that he NHL is still in Edmonton, and possibly Calgary and Ottawa today because Bettman managed to convince the league to adopt the Canadian equalization plan.

What silly rule changes did Bettman himself come up with? The only one that the competition committee enacted that made no sense is the current offside rule. If you would expand on this, I would be very interested.

As for dilution of talent, consider that in 1990, the NHL was at 21 teams and 90% Canadian. Virtually the entire league came from a nation of 25 million people.

In 2004, there were 30 teams - meaning 207 more players - but the league is only 60% Canadian. There are just as many Canadians in the NHL today as there was in 1990. The difference is, there was a massive influx of Europeans. The NHL draws from a population base of nearly 1 billion now, instead of 25 million.

Scoring is down, not because of dilution of talent, but concentration of talent. This is a historical fact proven throughout the entire history of the NHL. Scoring has always gone up when there was not enough talent to go around.

Afterall, if "over expansion" caused scoring to go down when nine teams were added over eight years, why didnt it go down when the NHL added 15 teams from 1967-1980? Oddly enough, scoring went way up during that time, as the talent pool was stretched thinner and thinner. It only started to come back down in the mid 90s when the European influx began en masse.

Beaner
02-18-2005, 08:29 PM
Bah.

Both Bob and Gary need to go. Those 2 will never trust each other or believe the other. I'm sick of listening to those two "gentleman".

The sooner both of them are gone the sooner they can start to repair the relationship between the players and owners, and maybe just maybe the 2 sides can start working on improving the game overall.

Furback
02-18-2005, 10:31 PM
phonix caralina atlanta nashville are horrible so he has braught in more bad markets than good markets how is that acceptable. and you started with the personal attack so dont act high and mighty. Im done with you for every good thing he has done 2 bad things so dont take my word for it lets have a pole on who thinks bettman has done a good job i bet there will be few and far between who think that he has done a good job. The league is watered down there is too many teams and not enough tallent so teams are now systeme driven. teams with little tallent choke the flow out of the game and there for entertainment is down. If you dont think the league is watered down your on crack.

RunTheGoalie
02-19-2005, 06:37 PM
Bah.

Both Bob and Gary need to go. Those 2 will never trust each other or believe the other. I'm sick of listening to those two "gentleman".

The sooner both of them are gone the sooner they can start to repair the relationship between the players and owners, and maybe just maybe the 2 sides can start working on improving the game overall.

I really do think the "Gary and Bob hate eachother" line is completely overblown. It's not a matter of them not trusting eachother.

Its a matter of their employers not trusting them. By the sounds of it, a sizable portion of the PA is furious with Goodenow for taking the cap after spending years promising that they would never accept a cap. Goodenow also promised that the owners would cave, and not only have they not caved, if you listen to whats coming out of todays meetings, they are actually starting to regress back to a level that more owners can sustain.

On the other side, several owners (mentioned today were Florida and Nashville, but rumored to be as many as 13 owners) were very unhappy that Bettman was willing to drop linkage. I dont doubt for a second when Bettman said that the next deals would be worse, and would inlcude linkage. I dont doubt that because the people in charge of this league - the owners - would make damn sure that they got their deal.

The players are going to regret not taking the $42.5 million cap offer a year from now, and the entire league is going to pay for it.

Tinner
02-19-2005, 07:25 PM
..but it looks like we won't have to worry about a season or losing the high profile CHL players this year.

Gary and Bob will be replaced...thats my prediction....later than sooner :clap:

RunTheGoalie
02-19-2005, 11:20 PM
We dont have to worry about getting payments for players drafted into the NHL either.

As a sidebar, I was sitting in my seat at the Dome tonight watching the Kootenay Ice trap the hell out of the Hitmen for 53 minutes thinking about the "diluted hockey" theory. It's interesting that the best team in the league runs defensive schemes far better than any team in the league aside from the Rockets - the second best team in the league.

Reminds me of the NHL in the 70s and 80s, where the most talented teams ran the best defensive systems.

Junior hockey is very wide open in comparison to the NHL. You dont see nearly as much trapping or obstruction, while the scores tend to be much higher. But, if dilution leads to lower scoring and more obstruction, how is this possible?

The NHL is made up of 30 teams with players from all over the world. The CHL is made up of 56 teams, and is 95% Canadian. The CJAHL is made up of 130 teams, and is about 99% Canadian.

It stands to reason that the CHL is far more diluted than the NHL is, yet the CHL game is higher scoring, more wide open. The CJAHL is even more diluted, especially since it draws from the same age group as the CHL, and is even higher scoring.

Even within the CHL, consider the leagues. The WHL is the deepest of the three, with the best defensemen and goaltenders. The QMJHL is the weakest of the three, and is generally known as a defensive wasteland. The OHL fits right in the middle. Of the three, the WHL has the lowest average scores, while the QMJHL has the highest.

If you look at the Tier 1 and Junior A ranks, the thinner the talent gets, the more wide open, and higher the scores get.

It's an interesting paradox that the diluted talent theory has difficulty with.