The article 100% blatantly states that.
- prock

And the original author's mea culpa states that he was wrong; no such disclosure occurred.

And the original author's mea culpa states that he was wrong; no such disclosure occurred.
- Atomic Wedgie

The funny thing is, in an incredibly simplified take on it, I essentially think the article states... “This landlord is actually more profitable when it has two tenants instead of one in the building”.

When you spend that much time shoveling.....
- prock

The shoveling must hurt. I am not sure if it is the shoveling or the ducking and dodging that actually makes him more tired.

He can take a break from shovelling, but he never takes a break from ducking and dodging.

The funny thing is, in an incredibly simplified take on it, I essentially think the article states... “This landlord is actually more profitable when it has two tenants instead of one in the building”.
- prock

and from that he concludes that the tenant is profitable. I think? I dunno, I got confused and started eating something yummy instead.

It sounds to me like the chances of an NHL season this year are pretty much nil. The bottom line is the Players do not feel they should be forced to absorb the costs or be financially burdened for the Leagues inability to effectively run a $3.3 billion a year business. The owners are trying to fix their mistakes by imposing less revenues and contractual limitations on the PA.

That being said, it's the owners business and whether they are at fault or not for the mishandlings of League finances, they have the right to impose their will upon the PA in order to continue to grow the league and allow all NHL franchises to become more viable entities for the betterment of the league as a whole.
- MnGump

Sorry but you couldn't be more wrong. Owners have the right to negotiate for whatever changes they want. Players have the right to decide if they work under those conditions. This concept is pretty basic and has been in place since your country abolished slavery.

Sorry but you couldn't be more wrong. Owners have the right to negotiate for whatever changes they want. Players have the right to decide if they work under those conditions. This concept is pretty basic and has been in place since your country abolished slavery.
- Canada Cup

Isn't that what he said?

Isn't that what he said?
- Pen15

There is a pretty big difference between the right to impose you will and the right to negotiate

There is a pretty big difference between the right to impose you will and the right to negotiate
- Canada Cup

Not in the NHL/PA situation.

What's the difference there?

The funny thing is, in an incredibly simplified take on it, I essentially think the article states... “This landlord is actually more profitable when it has two tenants instead of one in the building”.
- prock

And sometimes that isn't even the case.

I'm a big fan of the www.fieldofschemes.com website, which examines the ways in which taxpayers stupidly hand over huge sums of money so that owners can enjoy arenas and stadia for free.

Anyhoo, people always point to KC as a city ready for an NHL team, because they have a brand new arena with no tenant.

But in actuality, it is more profitable for the company that is contracted the arena to not have an NHL team - they can make more money without one.

Strange, but true.

From an article:

That said, it’s still better for AEG to be running a profit than running a loss, especially since the Sprint Center still doesn’t have a major-league sports tenant. And AEG seems to be intent on using its success with concerts to drive a hard bargain with any sports teams looking to move to Kansas City: AEG president Tim Leiweke told the Star, “The economic model of this building is quite successful. The last thing we or the city want to do is throw away that model and make the arena a loss leader with another tenant. It’s a tougher scenario with a professional team. I’m sure we wouldn’t be able to write a check to the city for $1.8 million.”

Not in the NHL/PA situation.

What's the difference there?
- Pen15

Not sure what you are saying. Owners are saying here are the conditions under which we will employ you. Players are saying here are the conditions under which we will work. They disagree, so no hockey.

Neither side can impose their wishes on the other. They both have to sign a piece of paper saying they agree.

Ha
HaHa
HaHaHaHa!
Sorry, but I'm assuming Ek's blog is a joke, right??

Face it fellow suffering fans, this season is toast due to the simple fact that BOTH owners and players care about one thing and one thing only, $$$$$$$

FU Gary Bettman
FU Donald Fehr
FU NHL Owners
FU NHLPA
YOU ALL SUCK!!!!!!!

Not sure what you are saying. Owners are saying here are the conditions under which we will employ you. Players are saying here are the conditions under which we will work. They disagree, so no hockey.

Neither side can impose their wishes on the other. They both have to sign a piece of paper saying they agree.
- Canada Cup

What I'm saying is that the NHL owners have and will impose their views on the players...and the players will be forced to sign, or go work for $40k/yr on a construction site somewhere.

The point: what you call negotiation is in reality one side imposing their views on the other...and then just waiting until they crack.

Not sure what you are saying. Owners are saying here are the conditions under which we will employ you. Players are saying here are the conditions under which we will work. They disagree, so no hockey.

Neither side can impose their wishes on the other. They both have to sign a piece of paper saying they agree.
- Canada Cup

Actually, they aren't.

Fehr is just saying "here are some vague concepts under which we would like to kinda dance around, in the hopes that you will continue to put forth better proposals."

Just kidding.

Actually, they aren't.

Fehr is just saying "here are some vague concepts under which we would like to kinda dance around, in the hopes that you will continue to put forth better proposals."

Just kidding.
- Atomic Wedgie

But that's an advanced form of negotiating.

I'm cereal!

And sometimes that isn't even the case.

I'm a big fan of the www.fieldofschemes.com website, which examines the ways in which taxpayers stupidly hand over huge sums of money so that owners can enjoy arenas and stadia for free.

Anyhoo, people always point to KC as a city ready for an NHL team, because they have a brand new arena with no tenant.

But in actuality, it is more profitable for the company that is contracted the arena to not have an NHL team - they can make more money without one.

Strange, but true.

From an article:

That said, it’s still better for AEG to be running a profit than running a loss, especially since the Sprint Center still doesn’t have a major-league sports tenant. And AEG seems to be intent on using its success with concerts to drive a hard bargain with any sports teams looking to move to Kansas City: AEG president Tim Leiweke told the Star, “The economic model of this building is quite successful. The last thing we or the city want to do is throw away that model and make the arena a loss leader with another tenant. It’s a tougher scenario with a professional team. I’m sure we wouldn’t be able to write a check to the city for $1.8 million.”
- Atomic Wedgie

Well, that’s more a case of “they’re more profitable with that tenant instead of that one”. I’m sure there are cases where it’s more profitable NOT to have a pro sports team in your arena. I’m merely stating that the article seems to be saying that in the year they had off, without that tenant in place, they didn’t make as much money. That should hardly be a revelation. This is a company set up to run an arena. Removing 41 dates from their schedule, assuming they’re not replaced fully, should probably reduce their profits. I’d say that would be the normal scenario outcome.

Now that said, I actually find it interesting that in the Florida scenario, they made a profit without the team. If anything, that would actually suggest to me that it’s quite possible it’s the rest of the business keeping the arena afloat (regardless of what the catalyst for building the arena was), not vice versa. It would be interesting to see the revenues that AOC is pulling in, in terms of the Panthers lease, and the rest of their operations.

Because there are too many loopholes, that the owners are trying to fix, that the players don't want fixed because they have it so (frank)ing good, the players don't care about league stability, all they care about is their own bank accounts. They want to act like (frank)ing victims with 7 figure salaries then those whiney little female doges can donate their endorsement deals to HRR. I hope the NHL puts that on the table
- SpoiledByOil

So if the players add their endorsement deals to HRR, the owners are going to add things like

-- revenues from relocation and/or expansion of teams,
-- revenues from non-NHL teams controlled or operated by an NHL team (e.g., minor league teams),
-- revenue from the sale of Club-owned property,
-- revenue from loans or other financing transactions,
-- interest income,
-- income from investments made with Club monies,
-- insurance recoveries and reimbursements,
-- revenue from the sale or leasing of real estate,
-- revenues raised for charity, and
-- anything of value intended to induce a team to stay in its current location or relocate to a different location?

And I haven't even touched things like gross ticket prices (including taxes) instead of net, and other revenues in full instead of the current method of netting out costs in some way.

One of those pots of money is much larger than the other. I'll let you figure out which one that is, and who's ultimately going to benefit from including all that stuff in the definition of HRR.

Put Campoli, Versteeg, White, and all of the NHL babies in a room to hammer out the contract, we can expect a complete fold of the union.

But they would tell Gary what a big jerk he is, cause business men get so rattled by name calling, hahahaha.

The League does not have the right to impose their will onto the PA. Not only that, but they simply don't have the power to do so. This is a Collective Bargaining Agreement Negotiation.
- MJL

Yes I'm aware it's a CBA, I've been apart of several of them myself... and the owners DO have the right to impose their wills if they so choose. It's their business, they own it, they run it. If they wanted to bust the union, they have the power to do so, they'd be foolish, but they have that option nonetheless.

That having been said, the players can try and drag this out as long as they wish, but in the end they will concede to the owners with out a doubt, they may get a few things in their favor, but for the most part, the owners will have won.

Well, that’s more a case of “they’re more profitable with that tenant instead of that one”. I’m sure there are cases where it’s more profitable NOT to have a pro sports team in your arena. I’m merely stating that the article seems to be saying that in the year they had off, without that tenant in place, they didn’t make as much money. That should hardly be a revelation. This is a company set up to run an arena. Removing 41 dates from their schedule, assuming they’re not replaced fully, should probably reduce their profits. I’d say that would be the normal scenario outcome.

Now that said, I actually find it interesting that in the Florida scenario, they made a profit without the team. If anything, that would actually suggest to me that it’s quite possible it’s the rest of the business keeping the arena afloat (regardless of what the catalyst for building the arena was), not vice versa. It would be interesting to see the revenues that AOC is pulling in, in terms of the Panthers lease, and the rest of their operations.
- prock

Seems pretty obvious, doesn't it?

But if you look at the actual numbers (unlike MJL, I actually read the Broward County report), there's other things going on that are not explained in the financials.

Both revenues and operating expenses jump dramatically after the lockout - by amounts that couldn't be explained by the return of hockey.

It's far too little a data dump to make any kind of conclusion.

Ha
HaHa
HaHaHaHa!
Sorry, but I'm assuming Ek's blog is a joke, right??

Face it fellow suffering fans, this season is toast due to the simple fact that BOTH owners and players care about one thing and one thing only, $$$$$$$

FU Gary Bettman
FU Donald Fehr
FU NHL Owners
FU NHLPA
YOU ALL SUCK!!!!!!!


- BiggE

Definitely agree with that.

So if the players add their endorsement deals to HRR, the owners are going to add things like

-- revenues from relocation and/or expansion of teams,
-- revenues from non-NHL teams controlled or operated by an NHL team (e.g., minor league teams),
-- revenue from the sale of Club-owned property,
-- revenue from loans or other financing transactions,
-- interest income,
-- income from investments made with Club monies,
-- insurance recoveries and reimbursements,
-- revenue from the sale or leasing of real estate,
-- revenues raised for charity, and
-- anything of value intended to induce a team to stay in its current location or relocate to a different location?

And I haven't even touched things like gross ticket prices (including taxes) instead of net, and other revenues in full instead of the current method of netting out costs in some way.

One of those pots of money is much larger than the other. I'll let you figure out which one that is, and who's ultimately going to benefit from including all that stuff in the definition of HRR.
- Irish Blues

Oh, Lord, let's not open that can of worms.

But one thing I do find a little curious: if I buy a Kessel jersey, Phil Kessel doesn't see a dime of it.

I'm assuming it's the same deal for all sports around the world, but it is kind of funny.

I recall that a bunch of NCAA football players were suing for the rights to their likenesses (actual pictures) being used without their consent or compensation, but I don't recall how that ended up (probably safe to assume they were told to shut up and like it).

I recall that a bunch of NCAA football players were suing for the rights to their likenesses (actual pictures) being used without their consent or compensation, but I don't recall how that ended up (probably safe to assume they were told to shut up and like it).
- Atomic Wedgie

It's still going. There was a development recently, actually.

http://www.usatoday.com/s...on-likeness-suit/1701593/

It's still going. There was a development recently, actually.

http://www.usatoday.com/s...on-likeness-suit/1701593/
- Travis Yost

In 1989, Rick Telander of Sports Illustrated wrote The Hundred Yard Lie: The Corruption of College Football and What We Can Do to Stop It.

23 years later, it's pretty obvious there's nothing we can do to stop it.

Down Goes Brown Tuesday, November 20, 2012
A moment with the guy who has to answer the phone when Gary Bettman orders a pizza



Let me have one with that topping that only irredeemably
evil people like. Yes, yes, of course I mean pineapple.

http://www.downgoesbrown....ttman-orders-a-pizza.html

Down Goes Brown Tuesday, November 20, 2012
A moment with the guy who has to answer the phone when Gary Bettman orders a pizza



Let me have one with that topping that only irredeemably
evil people like. Yes, yes, of course I mean pineapple.

http://www.downgoesbrown....ttman-orders-a-pizza.html
- Canada Cup

Pineapple rocks on pizza, provided it is balanced with an extremely ample amount of meat(s).