'Bombshell for the players'

[BlueSkirt]

Depends if the player is motivated by money up front, or the idea of playing in the World's Premier League (NHL) for hockey's most glorious prize the Stanley Cup and the potential of greater money later. It's an individual decision. The same issue some players face with the CFL and NFL.

[Triumph]

If players go running to Europe, they seriously jeapordize their NHL future. Only 'sure things' like a Crosby can consider such a move - everyone else has to learn how to play in the NHL. While players could be paid more in Europe, they will not be getting used to an 100 game season and will not be getting used to the physical play in North America.

And if you're a 'sure thing', you'll be making a lot more in your next contract, so it doesn't make much sense to go running over to Europe to make 25% more.

I'm sure there will be some player stupid enough to do it; Mike Van Ryn was stupid enough to want to leave the best franchise in the league at developing defensemen to go to the Albany River Rats with yellow jerseys in the Midwest and lost two years there.

[Get Real]

Don, if revenue met expenses the profit would be zero. The franchise would be worth what?

You had previously claimed that the franchise value would skyrocket because of the salary cap.. I thought you posted that.

I am trying to point out that to be profitable the team needs more than salary cap to be profitable. Don, am I making my point?

Triumph, are the players making more in Europe? I have followed salaries there. And is more compared to their old NHL salary before 24% cut? Thanks

Edited July 6, 2005 by Get Real

[Risky]

The point is that right now, 20 of the owners aren't even meeting their expenses with their revenues. This plan will make most of these teams instantaneously profitable, even with the forthcoming revenue dip. Once the NHL becomes a profitable venture again (for everyone), the boat will begin to turn around.

The new CBA will provide the foundation to make an NHL team a sound investment with protections in place to ensure both parity and longevity.

[SueNJ97]

The European salaries depend on the country. Right now, the highest salaries are in Russia. There, the BEST players can make several million dollars a year. Not the top of the old range (the 10 or 11 million a year that Jagr was making over here) but they can make 5-6 million easily. But Russia is not for everyone. It isn't even for some non-Russian Eastern Europeans (as Elias learned, he was miserable even before he got sick). Someone summed up the European options awhile back and said if you are going for the money and don't care about lifestyle, go to Russia. If you care about lifestyle and don't care about money, go to Switzerland. There were other comments, but they rated the countries by salaries, schedule, lifestyle, etc.

Plus, remember that the Czech Extraleague said they would not be repeating their signing of numerous NHL players, that they would sign some former NHL players who were Czechs who made it clear they wanted to stay in the Czech Republic but that overall the NHL experiment had been a flop for them. But that doesn't mean young Czech players who have been drafted by NHL teams but haven't signed NHL deals won't find the Czech League more attractive now.

But overall, European options may be more limited.

[Darwindog]

[PeteyNice]

It's more than just money Sue. Especially for the kids. I mean if you can get simillar money in your home country where you have a full support system and in a foreign country many thousands of miles away with a whole different language and culture staying home has certain advantages. I expect you will see a lot of top Euro prospects stay home. Also, if Karl Rachunek, a 4th dman at best is getting $1.3M to play in Russia the money would certainly be there for good players.

[LizDevil30]

It's more than just money Sue. Especially for the kids. I mean if you can get simillar money in your home country where you have a full support system and in a foreign country many thousands of miles away with a whole different language and culture staying home has certain advantages. I expect you will see a lot of top Euro prospects stay home. Also, if Karl Rachunek, a 4th dman at best is getting $1.3M to play in Russia the money would certainly be there for good players.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then the"new" NHL becomes a Canadian/American league? The Euros go play on their home ice. I'd miss the Euro players but that would leave one less thing for the media to complain about, foreign names they can't pronounce.

[SueNJ97]

It's more than just money Sue. Especially for the kids. I mean if you can get simillar money in your home country where you have a full support system and in a foreign country many thousands of miles away with a whole different language and culture staying home has certain advantages. I expect you will see a lot of top Euro prospects stay home. Also, if Karl Rachunek, a 4th dman at best is getting $1.3M to play in Russia the money would certainly be there for good players.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's why I said the Czech youngsters might stay at home. But it doesn't mean that all of them will stay at home. You are still going to get people who are more adventurous than others. Will there be fewer Europeans? Yes, probably. Especially Russians. But I think you will find that a number of them will still come. Whatever the money is, it's still good money and a good proportion of them except the Russians speak some English now before they come over here. It's not as difficult as it used to be. Guys like Elias, they stay here for the season, they go home to Czech for the summer and it's no problem.

[Triumph]

Money is still better in the States. Only a few clubs in Russia have that kind of cash for a Rachunek.

The best players will still come over. The Jiri Dopitas of the world can stay in their home country.

[NJDevs4978]

Money is still better in the States.  Only a few clubs in Russia have that kind of cash for a Rachunek. 

The best players will still come over.  The Jiri Dopitas of the world can stay in their home country.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I also suspect one reason Rachunek got what he did is that the foreign leagues know not as many NHL players are going to be going back over there this year now that an agreement's apparently close.

GR, would you rather have $500 revenue and $750 in expenses or $250 in revenue and $200 in expenses?

[Get Real]

Hasan, the later of course. I know what you are saying. All I am saying is salaries aren't the only expense and that the lowering of them doesn't mean that all teams will become instantly profitable note the word instantly and that these same teams won't become fanchises worth tons of money instantly. Now define instantly in my opinion with the NHL that could be 2-3 years or more and it depends on fan reaction to the situation and what the team's presentation to the fans regarding ticket prices. Leaving ticket prices the same or lowering the ticket prices by 10% in certain sections isn't fan friendly in my opinion. The Isle I think left the season ticlket prices the same but added a penalty if not paid for by a certain time. That's not so fan friendly. That's all! I don't want to make a big case of this. It just seems to me that while the new CBA should help the teams financially there are other items of expense and revenue to factor in. That's all. Thanks for the input Hasan. Do you had a follow up question or a point based on my answer to your question? I hope I explained mine point. A lot depends on the product each team puts on the ice. How entertaining the product is and that's a subjective opinion by each fan independently.

[rbdf]

Hasan, the later of course. I know what you are saying. All I am saying is salaries aren't the only expense and that the lowering of them doesn't mean that all teams will become instantly profitable note the word instantly and that these same teams won't become fanchises worth tons of money instantly. Now define instantly in my opinion with the  NHL that could be 2-3 years or more and it depends on fan reaction to the situation and what the team's presentation to the fans regarding ticket prices. Leaving ticket prices the same or lowering the ticket prices by 10% in certain sections isn't  fan friendly in my opinion. The Isle I think left the season ticlket prices the same but added a penalty if not paid for by a certain time. That's not so fan friendly. That's all!  I don't want to make a big case of this. It just seems to me that while the new CBA should help the teams financially there are other items of expense and revenue to factor in. That's all.  Thanks for the input Hasan. Do you had a follow up question or a  point based on my answer to your question? I hope I explained mine point.  A lot depends on the product each team puts on the ice. How entertaining the product is and that's a subjective opinion by each fan independently.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

GR, player salaries alone were upwards of 70% to 75% of revenue before the lockout, cutting them back to 55% of revenue, even if revenues are significantly less than pre-lockout, certainly gives a franchise at the very least, a fighting chance at profitability. If all teams are on the same footing as far as what they can spend on players, then it will come down to hockey savy and business savy in each front office to put together a good team that can compete, and, keep enough interest in the team and manage your business to turn a profit. You're capping the largest single line item expense, think about it like your home mortgage and real estate taxes - typically a NJ resident's single greatest monthly expense. Suppose someone shaved 15% to 20% off of it. Even if you took a paycut from your employer, wouldn't you stand a pretty good chance of coming out a little ahead at the end of each month? Sure, maybe you cut back on going out to dinner, or delay that new car purchase, but at the end of the day, your largest single expense has been cut back, and capped, I gotta imagine that, unless you're just bad at balancing your checkbook, you're gonna do a little better than before.

[Darwindog]

Owners in the long run will lose big money. Their investments will not grow at same pace as before.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is the statement that is causing some confusion.

Would you agree with those posters who prior to the lockout were saying attendance was in a major decline because the on-ice product was so poor?

If so - was it your beleif that were players to receive an significant pay raise the on-ice product would have improved?

To revive NHL revenue you would have proposed a significant decrease in ticket prices and a major pay raise for all players? I think that's what we're all wondering... it sounds like that was your idea of a "win-win" Is that correct?

[Get Real]

Proir to the lockout the financial worth of these team was growing at a rate of let's say "X" after this lockout the rate of growth for the team worth will be "X" minus.

So what is your point PK?

Prior to the lockout some teams had excellant on-ice product while others didn't. One has to define on-ice product. Some people enjoy a 1-0 game while other enjoy lots of scoring. Some people enjoy a defensive game while others enjoy an offensive and then some enjoy a combination of both. Some people enjoy a consistent team other care less.

No giving Steven a big raise late in his career didn't improve the Devils On-Ice product.

PK posted "To revive NHL revenue you would have proposed a significant decrease in ticket prices and a major pay raise for all players? I think that's what we're all wondering... it sounds like that was your idea of a "win-win" Is that correct?" NO

I would propose an incentive to bring fans back into the seats for all games at home to help the NHL recover. If that means lowering ticket prices while changing hockey style of a team then that's what needs to be done. Not every team will have the same problem some team were drawing before lockout.

Everyone, with any smarts, know you can't lower ticket prices and raise salaries and produce a win-win situation.

Revenue isn't only ticket sales. You need loyal and consistent fans to obtain the other revenues.

[Darwindog]

Everyone, with any smarts, know you can't lower ticket prices and raise salaries and produce a win-win  situation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

just making sure...

thank you for your response.

[Darwindog]

Prior to the lockout the financial worth of these team was growing at a rate of let's say "X" after this lockout the rate of growth for the team worth will be "X" minus.

So what is your point PK?

I think some people sort of had the feeling the value of teams weren't actually increasing. That the majority of teams were in fact decreasing in value. But it's OK if you don't agree. We'll just takeit from there...

Hmm... growth rate = X minus... minus what? lost ticket revenue? let's call that "Y" and lets call the 24% rollback and 20% salary in escrow "Z" So at the end of the lockout you feel that X+Z<Y

Get Real, You feel that the lost ticket sale revenue is significantly lower than 44% of the total of all players salaries... that's a LOT of unhappy fans Get real. A hell of a lot to risk if they were as you believe turning a profit prior to the descision to lock out and in addition cancel the season.

So that is your point at the end of the day -- THAT was the big gamble you were talking about.

So Get Real you think that anyone with any smarts would be willing to risk all that if they were indeed pulling a profit to start with? Do I have that right Get Real?

Just so you're clear -- people seemed to be trying to figure where the huge gamble was in this deal for owners you refered to. Most of us are thinking of the lockout as necessity - but you disagree - you feel they were making money and went to these extraordinary lengths just to make more...correct Get Real?

[Get Real]

Pk Help me understand why you are going down this path.

The sale price of teams was increasing ("X") before the lockout. McMullen sold his team for more than he paid for it, just an example. Don't jump all over that PK.

PK if "X" is a number let's assume it's 13% then "X" minus is less than 13%. PK do you follow?

PK I never said that the owners were turning a profit before the lock out. Profit PK and sale price of a team aren't the same.

You don't know what will happen with the salaries they may reduce by 24% there could be an escrow of 20% we don't know yet. I don't assume that an escrow account of player's salaries are considered a revenue number as escrow suggest it goes back to the players. So I don't relly understand your point PK and I don't think you do either.

Revenue comes in many flavors so loss of fans represent loss of revenue. Salaries aren't revenue there an expense PK. Ticket prices are revenue like hotdogs, beer, parking, programs, hats, shirts and etc. Fans spend money at games and Owners want them to spend that's why they want corporate boxes, spenders.

Enjoy your little fun, PK Please don't send me anymore emails. thanks PK

Get over it.

[Devils731]

If it makes PK feel any better GR is definitely wrong.

[Darwindog]

Get Real. I am confused about one thing, I have never sent you an email...

I will thus disregard that request and respond to the question you posed: Why am I going down this path?

I am sorry my using your own terminology confused you. It appears to me you have left many an unanswered question. From your former posts it seems you do not object to people requesting clarifications Get Real. There are several points that indeed Get Real, do rather confound me.

X = market value of team - is that what "Financial worth" and "growth rate" mean to you?

after the lockout the market value of the team = X-

X- what Get Real? You have an incomplete formula upon which you've asked people to find merit in your statement... but it has no established meaning... Get Real you are asking Hasan and Dan and rbdf and Triumph to understand your statment based upon incomplete data.

The path I embarked upon was the completion of that data in the same language in which it was started.

"Revenue comes in many flavors" (there's a gem if I ever read one ) But you know what? ... let's not continue down a different path... let stick tp the one you began on... the gamble of which you writ, that no one understood.

So is your point Get Real that we are in fact working with an incomplete picture (no CBA) therefore no judgement can be made at this time, therefore we should disregard your previous posts and all refrain from going down this path any further? Do I have that right Get Real? We don't know what that "minus" is equal to or if in fact it even exists at all, correct?

In other words Get Real, in my attempt to establish what on earth you are talking about we must in fact conclude you have no idea WHAT you are talking about. Is this correct get real? If it IS then you have in fact answered Don's and Hasan's and just about everyone elses questions satisfactorily and you do not need to respond further.

Edited July 7, 2005 by Darwindog

[StarDew]

One thing that needs to happen as soon as this thing is signed, sealed, and delivered. The NHLPA should be decertified and done away with. Goodenow is now totally ineffective and serves no useful purpose as a negotiater.

He completely underestimated Bettman and is now disgraced beyond belief. The best thing that he can do is step down and find another line of work that he can be sucessful at because he led the rank and file down the path to absolute distruction.

IceThief

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And may he take Frosty with him...hey...maybe he was taking advice from Frosty Good to see you again thiefy