puck7x Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Here is what one of the greatest players ever and <b>the</b> classiest player ever to play the game thinks about the lockout... Everyone should respect this man (agree or disagree with his opinion) http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=104218 'They're making a big mistake, a terrible mistake,'', Beliveau told the Gazette. ''I've always sided with the players in the past but this time I really believe they're completely wrong. I'm sad to see that players don't seem to believe that 20 or 22 franchises are in deep financial trouble. No business can operate with 75 per cent of its total revenue going to the salary budget.'' It cracks me up to know that the players either dont care what Beliveau says or dont beleive it. They have been brainwashed well by the PA. Please, get a deal done already! [Edited on 2004-12-29 by puck7x] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLP Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 puck what has the reaction been to Beliveau's comments? It says on the Gazette that he has been attacked by some players but I don't have a subscription so I only get the headline and lead... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider-Man NL Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Jean Beliveau one of the classiest Canadiens of all time. I think the NHLPA should smarten the fu*k up and listen to what he is saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutch_Habs_Fan Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 It's a great article, im very curious what the players will say about that. He definitely makes some sence! But probably the NHLPA won't give a damn! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Originally posted by puck7xHere is what one of the greatest players ever and <b>the</b> classiest player ever to play the game thinks about the lockout... Everyone should respect this man (agree or disagree with his opinion) http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=104218 'They're making a big mistake, a terrible mistake,'', Beliveau told the Gazette. ''I've always sided with the players in the past but this time I really believe they're completely wrong. I'm sad to see that players don't seem to believe that 20 or 22 franchises are in deep financial trouble. No business can operate with 75 per cent of its total revenue going to the salary budget.'' It cracks me up to know that the players either dont care what Beliveau says or dont beleive it. They have been brainwashed well by the PA. Please, get a deal done already! obviously thinking that 75% of revenue goesto salaries couldnt be part of a brainwashing from the NHL? I obviously respect Mr. Beliveau, but has certainly been strongly influenced by the canadiens' brass, probably not intentionally, but that is where he gets his information. I find it funny that beliveau insists that his crop of players left the NHL in great shape. Sure, the owners were doing fine, but the players were still getting basically screwed because they had to backbone to put together a proper union. If those players had been able to get themselves organized back then (like every other sport by that point) we wouldnt have many of the silly issues that cloud the debate. What other league has restricted free agency? Why does the NHL have no revenue sharing? why didnt the NHL expand 50 years ago into good markets? Quebec City, Buffalo, Minneapolis, Seattle - Why are there no long NHL histories there? From the war to the expansion 6 no attempts at expansion were made. Why was this? Because an incredibly small cabal of owners (let the name Norris be a curse on the tongue of all hockey fans - Gordie Howe's savings account is exhibit A) wanted to protect their fiefdoms. How would that have ran with a monitoring body in the form of a union? The Blackhawks would never have gotten away with spurning TV. The Habs and Leafs would have never gotten away with refusing to share TV revenues. The NHL would have pushed into markets when its core businesses were ripe and its product was a desireable commodity when there was a derth of programming to fill TV. A lack of oversite in the golden era screwed hockey. Somehow, through the inherent beauty of the game,and an incredibly loyal fanbase hockey is still a very lucrative business. I don't believe that 75% figure (btw think Levitt had it a bit lower, but whatever). Dont forget that most teams own their own arenas, charge themselves inflated rates and claim the rent as a loss. They dont count concessions or merchandising. They told levitt how to define hockey business before they let him analyze, thereby insuring the results. Does hockey have that blockbuster TV deals that would allow a stupid underlying structure to be hidden under a sea of money? Absolutely not. Is hockey insolvent? That is purely ridiculous. Show me the bankrupt owner. Why are teams relatively easy to sell? Do we believe that billionaires are all idiots? Dont forget that sports teams get favourable tax credits, from municipalities to the feds, amaturization of contracts and equipment, interstate transit during revenue accumulation, property taxes, bond issuances, its endless the degree to which sports teams are coddled by the government. This all leads to favourable returns for owners in even the bleakest of situations. Show me the penny that has come out of Mario Lemieux's pocketbook. In no way can this strike hurt the owners - a few might go bankrupt, ensuring an amaturized tax loss that will allow them to pay $0 to the IRS for a nice period of time. They will liquidate the HSBC centre or wherever doesnt make it. They will reduce the amount of players in circulation, cut the PA's budget, cut demand for players, lower salaries. But you won't see ticket prices go down. Players finally have some weapons to weather the owner-enforced hiatus. They have made enough money to live without checks for a while. There are alternative league in which to play. This, by the way, is the greatest fear of the NHL and all sports leagues - competition. Could you imagine if the SM Liga or RSL could offer anything commesurate with NHL salaries? The NHL owners would piss themselves. Where would Forsberg, Sundstrom, Sundin or a ton of scandanavian players rather play if the money was right? A lot of them, at least, would want to go home. The only thing worse for owners would be a WHL, although that now seems unlikely. But fear not, hockey will never die! the NHL, it is but a holding company, even the individual teams are not the NHL, but shareholders in a manhatten office. The hall of fame is not the NHL. The stanley cup is not the NHL. The players are not the NHL. Hockey is not the NHL. Where is the NHA? There will always be a demand for the sport of hockey, so there will always be a supply. Who cares what initials are enblazoned on the pucks? The Canadiens will survive. Hell, they predate the NHL. That is, if you really believe they're all going bankrupt. If 21,273 fans paying ridiculous prices and buying beer and steamies equals a negative bottom line. Dont forget, with an 83 cent dollar the hab's salary is much lower than even last year, which is much lower (75) than the year before (63). Look down St. Catherine - do you see the official habs jerseys, official habs hats? official habs license plate holders? Hey, anything is possible, but nobody has shown me a ledger yet. tickets $80 * 21000 * 41 = $68,880,000 food/drink $5 * 21000 * 41 = 4,305,000 without RDS, Sportsnet, TSN, Hockey Night in Canada, Soiree du Hockey, or merchandise I just got the habs to $73,000,000 with no playoffs ($61,000,000US)... so basically what they are saying is that 75% of the gate goes to the habs, but nothing else. I can live with that. (actually based on $45mil US as the habs salary - actually a bit lower because of buyouts, 2 way contracts, and midseason trade inflation it is about 73.5%) [Edited on 11/11/2004 by simonus] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zowpeb Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 I agree the owners numbers are probably off kilter a little bit but you are so incredibly biased it's insane. 1) Plenty of leagues have some form of restricted free agency similar to the NHL. Baseball has it's arbitration years, NFL/NBA have offer sheets to players teams still hold rights to. That's very similar to the NHL's RFA status. 2) The NHL DOES have limited revenue sharing. Unfortunately the t.v. deals are not big enough to make it effective. The NFL does not share it's gate revenue but has a t.v. deal about 10x larger. 3) Saying the NHL should've expanded 50 years ago is ridiculous. What's the point if it did or didn't? I'm still not sure where you were going with this...but the fact remains now that there are TOO MANY teams by at least 4 and possibly as many as 8. These teams can't sustain themselves through too small fanbases, lack of available talent etc...I'd hate to see the available talent base 50 years ago if we can't even fill it well now. 4) The Levitt number was a little lower but not by much. Merchandising is actually part of the league revenue sharing plan currently in place. They don't count concessions and the arena's...though I would argue that this is very minimal vs. all the money they actually make. I EXPECT owners to make good money...in fact, I expect them to make 20-30% profit! Which is not ridiculous for any business owner. I fail to see that players should be paid in such a way that teams simply "break even"...which seems to be the intent of every union in the world. Owners are in business to make money for THEMSELVES...it's expected. So long it's employees are paid well then I won't side with the union...and players are well beyond being "well paid". They make more in a 5 year career then most make in their lives... 5) Most companies hedge their risk on currency so despite the fact that the dollar is at .83 most companies are stuck in hedged rates closer to the .72 it was a year ago...granted even those hedge rates are increasing but there is a lag. 6) The NHL doesn't have much to worry about from competition...as soon as it resumes it'll be paying players significantly more $$$. Players, as we can easily see, are greedy and will play for the highest bidder(that is their point with the CBA talks right...) There is NO league in the world that is close to offering people numerous players per team 5+ mill contracts. These guys are playing for relative peanuts in europe right now...though they're still making WAY more then the average person. I won't call players in europe scabs but that still doesn't make it right...Joe Blow from the Ford plant can't just hop on over to a parts supplier and keep working. It's unethical and counter to all the rhetoric we've heard from players to date. 7) You admit some owners might go bankrupt but say they'd allow it for tax reasons...think about that. If they could simply continue to operate at a, what you call, an alleged loss then they'd have that to put as a tax deduction every year. It'd be in their best interest to keep that going not actually declare bankruptcy...people/orgs buy teams often for the prestige and status it affords them. These are people with money to burn or organizations that see a "status/advertising" advantage. I think players and fans often believe that owners should be willing to lose money to win championships...and some probably do, but it doesn't make it right or an effective business model. 8) You're revenue of 73 mill was in CDN dollars and your salaries in US dollars. 73 mill x .73(likely hedged rate amount) is 53 million. Revenue sharing from t.v. and merchandise may add about 15-20 million USD more a team. That's 73 million in total...now add in HUGE travel expenses, rent to the building, paying minor league prospects, paying admin staff, training, practice facilities, food, hotels, etc, etc, etc. They should probably only have payroll down around 55-60% to be run effectively!! I also don't have the Habs payroll from last year but I believe that in the not too distant past the payroll was over 50 million USD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider-Man NL Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 La Presse: Damphousse disagrees TSN.ca Staff/CP 11/11/2004 Former Montreal Canadiens captain Vincent Damphousse has taken issue with Habs legend Jean Beliveau's public comments about the NHL lockout. Earlier this week, the Hall of Famer blamed the players for the league's financial problems, and Damphousse told Montreal's La Presse that such assertions are incorrect. "I have a lot of respect for Mr. Beliveau, but I don't agree with his opinion when he says it is the players who have put hockey in trouble," Damphousse said in La Presse. "I heard him say that he doesn't have all the information and that he based his opinion on what he's heard. But what's he's been hearing isn't favourable to the players and it's like that across Canada." Beliveau made news this week when he said the players were "making a terrible mistake" by not making enough concessions to end the lockout. "It's not the players who put hockey in trouble," said Damphousse, a member of the NHL Players' Association executive. "The owners say that themselves. They're the ones who made bad decisions and who lacked discipline. We negotiate our contracts, but the owners set the budgets. And when contracts are signed, both sides seem happy." Damphousse noted that the players have offered concessions to reduce payrolls, including the lowering of rookie salaries and bonuses and an across-the-board salary reduction of five per cent. The owners have rejected these ideas. "People seem to forget that we're aware of the problem and we want to improve things," Damphousse told La Presse. "We have made concessions since the beginning." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider-Man NL Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Here is Souray's reaction to Beliveau's comment. The Montreal Gazette spoke with current Habs' defenceman Sheldon Souray, who is currently riding out the lockout by playing in Sweden, about Beliveau's comments. "His word carries a lot of weight, and I agree with him that the players are making a lot of money," Souray told The Gazette. "We've offered to give back some of the money from our contracts and we've tried to find other solutions. But a salary cap isn't the only issue. We're also fighting for other things, like guaranteed contracts." "We know the salaries are high, but on the other hand, the owners have put themselves in this position," Souray told the Gazette. "There's not a player out there who's sitting home saying, 'This unpaid vacation is great.' We all miss the game. No matter what, at the end of this lockout, hockey will struggle with getting back to where it should be and where it needs to be." While he disagrees with Beliveau's sentiments, Souray hopes the legend's statements might at least gets negotiations started in earnest. "Who knows?" he told the Gazette. "Maybe these things coming from Mr. Beliveau will light a fire under people and finally get them talking." and Martin Brodeur had this to say: New Jersey Devils goalie Martin Brodeur, who was in Montreal yesterday as a head-table guest at a charity dinner with Beliveau and other hockey greats the Bell Centre, also disagreed with Beliveau's point of view. "It was a different era for the older players who played the game before," Brodeur told the Gazette. "I understand what they're feeling, but it doesn't mean [today's players] agree with everything they say. And [beliveau] works for the Canadiens, so it's kind of hard for him to side with the players on this." http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=104342 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider-Man NL Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 I like to quote Martin Brodeur ""It was a different era for the older players who played the game before" Well you got that right Marty, back then the players weren't a bunch of greedy bast*rds like they are today. Back in Beliveau's day they played the game because they love it, not because of the money. The players back then actually took pride in the jersey that they wore and thats more than I can say for the players now. 99.9% of them today could care lest about the team they play for or the fans, the main thing to them is that they get that big fat pay check. [Edited on 2004/11/11 by Spider-Man NL] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puck7x Posted November 12, 2004 Author Share Posted November 12, 2004 This is interesting... Forbes reports that the NHL lost less then Arthur Levitt orginally reprorted... http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/1129/124.html Who's right? FORBES' figures show that hockey teams are indeed losing money but not nearly as much as the owners claim. The 30 teams in the NHL lost a combined $96 million (before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) on revenue of $2.2 billion during the 2003-04 season, with 17 teams posting a loss. The prior season the NHL lost $123 million on revenue of $2.1 billion. I dont know what or who to beleive anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Minister Koivu Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 [ While he disagrees with Beliveau's sentiments, Souray hopes the legend's statements might at least gets negotiations started in earnest. "Who knows?" he told the Gazette. "Maybe these things coming from Mr. Beliveau will light a fire under people and finally get them talking." http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=104342 This is what is important. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong. If they do not sit down and talk about it, all things are pointless. They will have to sit down eventually so why not do it now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs13 Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Souray is a classy guy! I hope he remains a habs for the rest of his NHL carear.. should there be anymore chapters to theNHL, that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 Originally posted by puck7xThis is interesting... Forbes reports that the NHL lost less then Arthur Levitt orginally reprorted... http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/1129/124.html Who's right? FORBES' figures show that hockey teams are indeed losing money but not nearly as much as the owners claim. The 30 teams in the NHL lost a combined $96 million (before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) on revenue of $2.2 billion during the 2003-04 season, with 17 teams posting a loss. The prior season the NHL lost $123 million on revenue of $2.1 billion. I dont know what or who to beleive anymore. Interesting article. It is nice to see a third party deal with these essential issues. I will accept that many teams are losing a certain amount of money, although I'm sure many teams are making money. BTW - a 20% annual return on investment is huge! 10% would be very healthy, I would be super happy if my stock portfolio made 10% a year. I like forbes' way of looking at certain parts of this (never thought I would say that) - look at the franchise sale values - you would have to believe that billionaires are not self-interested in order to explain the numbers under the supposition that teams are losing value, I find this incredibly difficult. BTW - most teams probably didnt hedge that much cash this year since they were waiting for a lockout. average salary $41,000,000 x 30 = $1,230,000,000 loss (according to forbes) $96,000,000 5% of $1,230,000,000 = $61,500,000 in a single concession the NHLPA offered to erase 2/3 of the annual NHL debt load.... that sounds nice. You would think that would be the basis of productive discussions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zowpeb Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Even if they lost 96 million it's still a MAJOR loss. That's an average of about 3 million a team just to break even. Considering most businesses make 20-30% that's way behind...and you can't compare your ROI on an investment portfolio to the margins made on business. Hell, I sell product at 50% gross profit and that translates into probably about 30% ROI. Most contractors(probably one of the tightest margin businesses I know of...) make 15-25%. Think about it...if you only made 10% no one would ever start their own business. You'd have to sell 1,000,000 a year just to make enough to put back into your business to grow it AND make any sort of living...and a million a year in sales is not easy in your first few years. NO ONE would run a business like that...BUT we expect NHL ownership not only to do that but to also LOSE money year to year. Let's say the "true" loss(and I think even the NHLPA can't deny that there was one...) is somewhere in between the owners number and Forbes. I'll pick 150 mill(closer to the Forbes number btw...). That's 5 mill a team...and if teams want to fiscally viable and run at a 5-10% profit a year then they'd need to find about 10-15 million a team in total...that's 300-450 million!!!!!!!!!! I also find it amusing that Forbes got their numbers from members of the broadcast and print media amongst others...all of whom have no idea what the actual numbers are...lol. Really, I just don't see that the NHLPA has a leg to stand on...they're creaming themselves over the Forbes report which is only showing that owners are indeed losing a crapload of money. All the Forbes report does is back up ownerships claim that they are spending WAY too much on salaries and that they need some sort of cost certainty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33_ Posted November 21, 2004 Share Posted November 21, 2004 Players are greedy bastards. Owners are greedy bastards. It's like this in every sport. But other sports have found a way to deal with it. How did the NBA and NFL manage to get the players to agree to a cap? Baseball would likely be in a simliar situation as hockey had their CBA not run out so close to 9-11. People see baseball as the national past-time in the states, so they couldn't afford to let it go during this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quebecois Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 <i>Baseball would likely be in a simliar situation as hockey had their CBA not run out so close to 9-11. People see baseball as the national past-time in the states, so they couldn't afford to let it go during this time. </i> At least the NHL is taking a stance and not allowing the overspending to continue. I'll take the year without hockey if we get long-term solutions to allow a system that works. Baseball will be the Sox-Yanks show forever the way they are going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33_ Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 That simply isn't true. The Marlins and Angels won the Series in 2002 and 2001, respectively. And look at teams like Oakland and Minnesota, who are perenial contenders in the AL. I'm not saying that the Yankees and Red Sox don't screw over the rest of the league, I'm just saying the MLB is far from the NYY/BOSOX show. Between them, they've won 1 out of the last four WS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.