Thread: The Official CBA Negotiations/Lockout Super Thread

Originally Posted by santiclaws

The fact of the matter is, no one knows anything about the health of the individual franchises. All we have are guesses. Gary Bettman, of all people, has not claimed that a lot of franchises are losing money, he simply said that the players are making too much. The other thing to keep in mind that for most, if not all owners, the ownership of a sports team is not about turning a profit. There are much better ways to invest money. Sports teams make money sometimes, but it is a mistake to equate ownership of sports teams to ownership of other businesses. The primary purpose is NOT to make money. It is an ego and vanity boost. Finally, much of the profit in a franchise is the increase in the value, not the year-to-year profit. On average, the value of NHL franchises has risen very significantly since the last CBA. That 's the biggest profit the owners will reap, and the players do not get a piece of that pie at all.

Who are we to judge, or say this? Business people go into business and risk their capital to make money. That includes the entertainment business. Franchises may go up in value, but that isn't going to continue indefinitely. When I see what the Dodgers were sold for and what AEG wants for their entire business, the word "bubble" comes to mind.

A little bright spot:
It's in the owners best interest not to cancel the season.

Originally Posted by aaron

A little bright spot:
It's in the owners best interest not to cancel the season.

I only skimmed that because the numbers made my head hurt, but it doesn't look like the author took into account the ever increasing damage that will be done the longer the lockout lasts (not that something like that could be easily converted into dollars, but the numbers could be adjusted based on assumptions). All the more reason to get things moving!!!!

Originally Posted by Dr. Naysay

It's time to do away with Free Agency.

I believe 47% of America has done away with Free Agency.

Originally Posted by KINGS17

Who are we to judge, or say this? Business people go into business and risk their capital to make money. That includes the entertainment business. .

Well, I'll disagree with you there. I don't think making money is a primary motivation when buying into a sports team. There are much, much better bets if your objective is making money.

But if we're going to discuss "regular business," then who says all regular businesses make money or that they all should? Should the Islanders be making money regardless of their "management"? Should Columbus? Why was the arena in Phoenix built in the middle of nowhere? Why should the NHLPA members pay for crappy management and bad decisions in which they had no part, and that doesn't include the stupid contracts handed out by just about everyone?

On the flip side of the coin, why should franchises which are very successful, like the Rangers and Toronto, reap a windfall as a result of the proposed CBA?

Originally Posted by santiclaws

But if we're going to discuss "regular business," then who says all regular businesses make money or that they all should? Should the Islanders be making money regardless of their "management"? Should Columbus? Why was the arena in Phoenix built in the middle of nowhere? Why should the NHLPA members pay for crappy management and bad decisions in which they had no part, and that doesn't include the stupid contracts handed out by just about everyone?

This is a good point. Is a team that is doing poorly having problems because the system is broken or because it is being poorly managed (and, therefore, deserving of failure)? I can't remember where I read it, but I read an article (probably linked from one of these discussions) citing numerous, significant, bad management decisions by the teams at the bottom of the 2011-12 home attendance rankings. Made a lot of sense.

The problem is that, with "regular business," one competitor doesn't mind if another competitor fails. If Pepsi goes out of business (whether because of bad management or otherwise), Coke will be thrilled. In sports, however, the relationships between teams is far more symbiotic. If Team X is failing (regardless of the reason), that's not necessarily a cause for celebration for Teams A-M who are healthy. The recognition of this fact is why a city like Green Bay, Wisconsin is able to continue fielding a team that is competitive with teams from New York and Chicago.

Originally Posted by santiclaws

Well, I'll disagree with you there. I don't think making money is a primary motivation when buying into a sports team. There are much, much better bets if your objective is making money.

But if we're going to discuss "regular business," then who says all regular businesses make money or that they all should? Should the Islanders be making money regardless of their "management"? Should Columbus? Why was the arena in Phoenix built in the middle of nowhere? Why should the NHLPA members pay for crappy management and bad decisions in which they had no part, and that doesn't include the stupid contracts handed out by just about everyone?

On the flip side of the coin, why should franchises which are very successful, like the Rangers and Toronto, reap a windfall as a result of the proposed CBA?

You don't think NFL or MLB franchises are bought with the idea of making money? Sorry, I disagree. There is no reason NHL and NBA owners shouldn't have the same expectation and a CBA that will allow profits to occur with well managed clubs. We as fans don't get to judge the owners and decide that they should just be in it for the tax write off and to provide us with entertainment. We are not entitled to that.

The owners are going to have to realize that they are partners and not running 30 individual businesses. More revenue sharing will be necessary.

Has anyone cancelled their Center-Ice package yet?

I don't think it has been said enough in this lockout talk thread, so...
**** lockouts.