Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

Report- No More Concessions From The NHL

from Bruce Garrioch of the Ottawa Sun,

While some media are speculating bargaining could resume Wednesday in New York, deputy commissioner Bill Daly told QMI Agency in an e-mail the NHL is willing to negotiate only on the offer it made the union last Tuesday.

"We have a proposal on the table," Daly wrote Monday. "If, and when, the (union wants) to bargain over it, we will be more than happy to do so."

NHL commissioner Gary Bettman, facing heat to get the season started, tabled a proposal that would have seen the sides settle their differences with a six-year CBA that included a 50-50 split in hockey-related revenues.

League sources say Bettman won't be allowed to offer up any more concessions to try to get a deal and, in fact, he has gone further than some owners expected he would.

There is concern in league circles the NHL won't be able to do anything to satisfy union executive director Donald Fehr and if Bettman continues to negotiate he is doing so against himself despite tremendous pressure to play.

more

Filed in: NHL Talk, NHLPA, | KK Hockey | Permalink
 

Comments

Avatar

Report- No Concessions From The NHL

Fixed that for you.

Posted by Garth on 10/23/12 at 10:04 AM ET

henrymalredo's avatar

It’s so funny when the NHL talks about making concessions.  They’ve never made any concessions, they just shift their offers so they are slightly less worse for the players.

Posted by henrymalredo from Lansing on 10/23/12 at 10:33 AM ET

Avatar

If owners and Bettman really expected the players to take an immediate 7% reduction in share and some BS method of making up the difference on existing contracts all the while remembering they handed the players assess to them last time they never intended on having a season. It’s too much too fast for the players to give up

If people can’t see how poor of a job Bettman has done they are blind. Imagine doing a negotiation and you get everything you want. Then down the road when it’s negotiating time again you say this deal just doesn’t work. Who is to blame. Owners have put themselves in this joke. They cheated the systemand now want players.to bail them out. And Minnesota’s owner is the.best. 4 months ago he handed out mega deals but is now saying this is out of hand.

The NHL is a joke.  It shouldn’t be considered a legitimate league as pathetic as it is.

Posted by tbassett on 10/23/12 at 11:17 AM ET

HockeytownOverhaul's avatar

Agree with all the comments above.  Came here to say the same shit.

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 10/23/12 at 01:16 PM ET

redxblack's avatar

It is stupifying, but I am starting to believe that this league does not know what negotiations or collective bargaining structures really are. The days of “My way or the highway” died with Jack Adams and the Norris family.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 10/23/12 at 01:23 PM ET

Avatar

I think people are confusing a few different but related issues.

1) The NHL is run poorly and Gary Bettman is a bad commissioner.  I think this statement is about as irrefutably true as any such statement could be.

2) Since #1 is true, it’s the owners fault they are in the spot they are in.  I think this is also true.

3) Since it’s the owners fault they are in the spot they are in, the players shouldn’t have to make any further concessions.

#3 is where I appear to diverge from most other commentors here.

I think #1 and #2 are true, but just because they are doesn’t remove the players from any culpability for why things are this way.  I don’t blame the NHLPA for holding out for the best deal they can get, nor do I blame them for doing whatever they can under any negotiated deal to maximize their ‘profits’.  That is what it is.  Still, player costs are far and away the biggest drag on team profits.

I think the NHL offices in general and Bettman specifically are a pair clownbleeps who are borderline incompetents.

Were Bettman competent, the CBA he got in 2005 would have resembled the CBA he’s very likely to get in 2012 (or 2013).  But he’s not competent, so he had to write that last CBA and have it be hammered into a million little pieces by people who are competent… namely, some NHL GMs (some, mind you) and players agents… so he could have another go at one that will hopefully be less like it was put together by a sixth grader.

But he’s not competent, so the old CBA was a joke, so the NHL is right back where it was 6 years ago doing the same thing again because they are bad at their jobs.

Here is the absolutely critical part of this:  Just because both Bettman and the NHL are idiots does not mean the thing they are trying to do is something that should not be done.

The NHL’s current business model is a disaster.  League yearly profits come out to somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 million bucks a team.  We’re talking a 1-3% ROI with the potential to have 8 figure losses if a couple things go the wrong way.  A guy could get a better return and an infinitely safer return by getting T-Bills than he could from owning an NHL team.

Which is why nobody new wants to own an NHL team, why 2-6 of the people who currently own NHL teams can’t afford them, and why 18-20 of them lose money every year. 

Based on Forbes numbers, the Leafs made more by themselves last year than did the whole rest of the NHL combined.  Toronto made 81.8 mil and the other 29 teams made, collectively, 63.2 mil.

23 of the 30 teams had an owner who made less than a player on said team.

Think about that for a second.  Paul Stastny made more as a player for the Avs last year than Kroenke made for owning the bleeping team.

Briere, Hartnell, Giroux, Jagr, Timmonen, Pronger, Carle, Meszaros and Bryzgalov ALL made more to play for the Flyers than Snyder did to own them.  Coburn made as much.

Does that seem rational or reasonable to anyone?  Are there actually people out there who believe sports franchises should be run as non-profit charities?

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/23/12 at 01:35 PM ET

IwoCPO's avatar

You typed a lot, HD.  I stopped reading after this sentence, because nothing could have been phrased any better.  It’s simple and it’s law:

1) The NHL is run poorly and Gary Bettman is a bad commissioner.

3 work stoppages and he still has a job.  I honestly can’t see myself ever taking this league seriously again if he isn’t fired or “asked to resign” or “steps down because the stress of being a *#$%@& has been too much of a strain on his family”.

Posted by IwoCPO from Sunny San Diego, bitches on 10/23/12 at 02:07 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Think about that for a second.  Paul Stastny made more as a player for the Avs last year than Kroenke made for owning the bleeping team.

Poor Stanley Kroenke

http://www.forbes.com/profile/stanley-kroenke/

Poor guy who also owns the Pepsi Center and the television network that the Avalanche are on and whose revenues are definitely related to his owning the bleeping Avalanche, but are not included in the Forbes numbers.

...who can charge and counter-charge into those operating income figures across the three different companies via lease and contractual agreements to make it appear as though he’s basically running a charity meant to benefit the greedy Paul Stastny.

and POOR Ed Snider while we’re at it.

Poor poor Ed Snider…

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/23/12 at 02:37 PM ET

Nathan's avatar

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/23/12 at 01:35 PM ET

Your calculations only include what was strictly defined as HRR, not the other dollars those owners make that are derivative of the presence of the hockey club.

And regardless, 1) the owners willingly choose to sign the contracts, and 2) the owners are unable to negotiate internally to come up with a more robust revenue sharing model.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 10/23/12 at 02:51 PM ET

WingsFaninCO's avatar

Poor Stanley Kroenke

http://www.forbes.com/profile/stanley-kroenke/

Poor guy who also owns the Pepsi Center and the television network that the Avalanche are on and whose revenues are definitely related to his owning the bleeping Avalanche, but are not included in the Forbes numbers.

Who also owns the other primary tenant of the Pepsi Center: The Denver Nuggets (I thoiugh this was the case but wasn’t sure.  Thanks JJ.)  Oh, and is married into the Wal-Mart fortune.  And we all know the owners of Wal-Mart are wonderful, giving people who care deeply about their employees.  I am sure Kroenke cares just as deeply for his own employees.

Posted by WingsFaninCO on 10/23/12 at 02:52 PM ET

WingsFaninCO's avatar

wow..crazy typo:  thought*

Posted by WingsFaninCO on 10/23/12 at 02:53 PM ET

Avatar

Oh, and is married into the Wal-Mart fortune.  And we all know the owners of Wal-Mart are wonderful, giving people who care deeply about their employees.  I am sure Kroenke cares just as deeply for his own employees.

How does the guy’s spouse and/or implied villainous behaviour towards his staff have anything to do with his profits from the Avs?

Posted by yayamo on 10/23/12 at 03:19 PM ET

WingsFaninCO's avatar

How does the guy’s spouse and/or implied villainous behaviour towards his staff have anything to do with his profits from the Avs?

Posted by yayamo on 10/23/12 at 03:19 PM ET

I admit the statement was somewhat digressive: it was a new piece of information I was unaware of and it left an even more foul taste in my mouth that thoughts of the owners usually do). 

That said, it was not entirely off-topic:

1) The Waltons are, in general, deplorable human beings.  Mr. Kroenke’s desire to marry into such a family/culture speaks volumes about his morals and his disposition toward employees and the “average” american.  While this doesn’t speak directly to profits, the grander picture here is the entire lockout: the owner vs. player dynamic, the owners’ “players are just cattle” attitude, and the lockout as a whole.

2) In such a family/culture cash is king and creative accounting is the name of the game. NOTHING is done without a significant return on investment and that return will not always show up where expected.  It’s silly to believe that Kroenke is the sort of person who is running the Avs out of the good of his heart or for anything less than a significant return on his investment.

Posted by WingsFaninCO on 10/23/12 at 03:34 PM ET

Avatar

believe sports franchises should be run as non-profit charities

You do know that NFL teams are listed as a non-profit for tax purposes, don’t you?

Paul Stastny made more as a player for the Avs last year than Kroenke made for owning the bleeping team

And so did Gary Bettman who is his employee as well, there is a nice little area for cost cutting. We are to assume that the increase in value of the team is also going to be split with Paul Stastny too right?

I think if you want greater return on investment than 1% buy T-bills, if you are rich and you want a hobby that fans in general pay for, buy a sports team. This is all about billionaires putting it on the table to prove who’s is bigger and then want the fans to fluff it for them. Sports just aren’t rational investments, they are ego purchases.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 10/23/12 at 03:38 PM ET

Avatar

Poor Stanley Kroenke

You’re clearly not getting the point, JJ.  It’s not to throw a pity party for billionaires, it is to point out that the economics of the NHL are completely screwed up.

Your calculations only include what was strictly defined as HRR, not the other dollars those owners make that are derivative of the presence of the hockey club.

Nor does it include anything the owners make completely outside of the NHL.

HRR’s old definitions tend to catch most hockey-related stuff, but there is always the possibility for a few things to slip through the cracks.

Be that as it may, I think it’s pretty tough to substantively disagree with the idea that ownership of an NHL team is one fraught with a whole lot of implicit and explicit financial risk, far and above that in the NFL, NBA or MLB.  Comparatively limited revenue streams and comparatively large player costs appear to be two of the major reasons that is the case.

How does the guy’s spouse and/or implied villainous behaviour towards his staff have anything to do with his profits from the Avs?

Nothing.  It’s just a vehicle with which to shoot a flamethrower at an owner because he’s already rich.

You do know that NFL teams are listed as a non-profit for tax purposes, don’t you?

Are the teams listed that way, or just the league office?

I think if you want greater return on investment than 1% buy T-bills, if you are rich and you want a hobby that fans in general pay for, buy a sports team. This is all about billionaires putting it on the table to prove who’s is bigger and then want the fans to fluff it for them. Sports just aren’t rational investments, they are ego purchases.

They can be ego investments, sure… but if all you want are people who buy sports for ego, you’re going to have a pretty screwed up cadre of owners and that’s something which boomerangs back on the league.

 

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/23/12 at 04:35 PM ET

Avatar

Think about that for a second.  Paul Stastny made more as a player for the Avs last year than Kroenke made for owning the bleeping team.

I wonder if the reason for that is that Paul Stastny is a professional hockey player who trains year round to be one of the best hockey players in the world and Stan Kroenke is a real estate billionaire who used some of the money that he found in his couch cushions to own an NHL team as a hobby.

Paul Stastny made more money playing hockey than Stan Kroenke made by employing a hockey player?  OH MY GOD, I DON’T BELIEVE IT!!!  You know what?  I bet Stan Kroenke’s housekeeper earned more money by being his housekeeper than Stan Kroenke earned by employing a housekeeper.  Does that mean she’s making too much money?

Owning a hockey team is not something you do to make money, it’s something to do when you have money already.  It’s not the same as owning a real estate development company or a chain of pizza places.  If an NHL owner decides to spend to the cap and doesn’t make enough back to cover his costs, that’s his risk.  When a player tries to live his dream of becoming a professional hockey player his risk is physical and mental health.

If the owners want to make more money and minimize their financial risk then they should find a way to ensure that they can minimize the players’ physical and mental health risks.

Posted by Garth on 10/23/12 at 04:35 PM ET

Avatar

Owning a hockey team is not something you do to make money, it’s something to do when you have money already.

Excellent.  So then making millions to play hockey isn’t really the point for players then either?  They should just be playing for love of the game just like owners should own teams for love of the game?

Why is it that only one side is allowed to have profit motives?

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/23/12 at 04:54 PM ET

WingsFaninCO's avatar

How does the guy’s spouse and/or implied villainous behaviour towards his staff have anything to do with his profits from the Avs?

Nothing.  It’s just a vehicle with which to shoot a flamethrower at an owner because he’s already rich.

Yep.  Every aspect of this lockout is a microcosm and shame on those who try to look at annyhting outside the lines you have carefully drawn.  Continue to try impressing us with your financial knowledge even as you believe the earnings reports in Forbes.  Things are awfully simple when you only look at the trees and ignore the forest.

Posted by WingsFaninCO on 10/23/12 at 05:00 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

You’re clearly not getting the point, JJ.  It’s not to throw a pity party for billionaires, it is to point out that the economics of the NHL are completely screwed up.

By continuing to parrot numbers that I don’t believe reasonable people should use as though they are strong enough to truly make a comparative case like you have.

By ignoring that the guy you used as your example of how little he makes for owning the team uses that team to bolster other businesses which rightly aren’t considered HRR.  The Avs get good local ratings on the television station that Kroenke owns. Altitude sports turns that into ad revenue.  Would that revenue be anywhere near where it is if the Avalanche weren’t around?

I mean, the Avs as a team can kiss off, but as a business, they’re extremely stable right now.  But, when using them for your example, you jumped to the extreme of making an implication that they’re somehow being run as a charity.

I don’t feel badly for Kroenke because I believe what’s screwed up is that the NHL owners are all-too-happy to have people believe that they’re a dirt-farming charity right up to the point where people ask them to open their books for review to actually prove that.

There is absolutely zero indication that Stan Kroenke is anything but better off for owning the Avalanche and that there is anything which needs to change in the economics of hockey to keep that going.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/23/12 at 05:16 PM ET

Avatar

And regardless, 1) the owners willingly choose to sign the contracts, and 2) the owners are unable to negotiate internally to come up with a more robust revenue sharing model.

1) And all of those contracts had a codicil which meant, roughly CBA > SPC.  The players signed that part too.  If the players get to void that section of an SPC, which parts can owners zero out in trade? wink

2) Then why is the NHL’s RS offer 200 million, up from 150 in the last CBA?

Every aspect of this lockout is a microcosm and shame on those who try to look at annyhting outside the lines you have carefully drawn.

Not everything, just the comment I quoted.  That’s why quotes are kind of neat.  They provide a beginning and an end for the range of words one addresses and ordinarily provide a pretty clear indication of what you are and are not referring to.

Things are awfully simple when you only look at the trees and ignore the forest.

They appear to be even simpler when one chooses to divest themselves from reality all together.

 

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/23/12 at 05:26 PM ET

Avatar

By continuing to parrot numbers that I don’t believe reasonable people should use as though they are strong enough to truly make a comparative case like you have.

Well, choose to believe or disbelieve as you will.  There’s little I can do to persuade you that hasn’t already been done.

By ignoring that the guy you used as your example of how little he makes for owning the team uses that team to bolster other businesses which rightly aren’t considered HRR.

Two seconds ago you appeared to be concerned that numbers were being employed in support of a case, and that you were skeptical of the value of said numbers, and ergo the case itself.

That was a startlingly fast adjustment to your standards, wouldn’t you say?

I mean, the Avs as a team can kiss off, but as a business, they’re extremely stable right now.

So are people in comas.

I don’t feel badly for Kroenke

I will repeat myself in the event repetition is an aid to comprehension:

“You’re clearly not getting the point, JJ.  It’s not to throw a pity party for billionaires, it is to point out that the economics of the NHL are completely screwed up.”

In case variation is an aid to comprehension where repetition is not, I don’t ‘feel bad’ for Kroenke either.  I don’t think anyone should ‘feel bad’ for Kroenke.  I think a whole boatload of players making more to play teams than owners make for owning teams is a huge indication that the financials of the league for said team are facacta.

That’s not to gin up pity for owners, it is to point out how flawed the financials are.  The impact of said financial flaws will be and obviously have been felt in a number of other ways which should elicit and which have elicited emotions from those involved.

 

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/23/12 at 05:36 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Two seconds ago you appeared to be concerned that numbers were being employed in support of a case, and that you were skeptical of the value of said numbers, and ergo the case itself.

That was a startlingly fast adjustment to your standards, wouldn’t you say?

Only if you’re making a leap to create something I said which I didn’t. I merely pointed out that there’s much more information out there than you chose to use when you stated that Kroenke makes less than Stastny for owning the Avs.  It holds steady that I don’t believe you.

So are people in comas.

That’s a great non-sequitur.

That’s not to gin up pity for owners, it is to point out how flawed the financials are.

And to do so, you’ve used flawed metrics and rhetorical sleight-of-hand.

In case it wasn’t clear, the Avalanche are in good shape. They are stable and do not need a change to keep themselves in great position to remain an asset worth holding for Stan Kroenke.  The idea that he should somehow be making more money for owning them than he currently does simply begs the question about exactly how much money he actually makes for owning them.  If you want to believe that the Forbes numbers capture everything that is valid and are within your comfort zone for accuracy, then you’ve got the same choice I have as far as what you want to believe.

I’m simply stating as I always have: It’s naive to believe that the Forbes numbers are very close to accurate when anything resembling an in-depth look at what is comparable between teams just opens nothing but a whole slew of questions about how teams where everything measurable is so comparable but somehow those final figures are not.

The Flyers have only $2M more to overcome in the player-cost-to-gate-receipt calculation you were using earlier and they pull in $28M more in revenues, yet somehow when all is said and done, they’re not close to $26M per season better off than the Avs, instead they’re $3M worse off.  Does it really cost the Flyers $29M more to operate than it costs the Avalanche?  Just like the Avs, they play in arena that’s owned by the same company which owns the team and they own the broadcast company which shows their games AND they travel less.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/23/12 at 06:01 PM ET

WingsFaninCO's avatar

Not everything, just the comment I quoted.  That’s why quotes are kind of neat.  They provide a beginning and an end for the range of words one addresses and ordinarily provide a pretty clear indication of what you are and are not referring to.

That’s a convenient way to restrict the conversation to boundaries you define and completely ignore your outrage last week that others had he nerve to consider the actions and intents of the owners in July 2012 when discussing the current CBA discussions.

I can play with quotes, too:

Only if they negotiated contracts while intending to go on strike the following season until they got their raise.

You are conflating the two issues.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/17/12 at 05:30 AM ET

 

 

 

Posted by WingsFaninCO on 10/23/12 at 06:16 PM ET

Avatar

Only if you’re making a leap to create something I said which I didn’t. I merely pointed out that there’s much more information out there than you chose to use when you stated that Kroenke makes less than Stastny for owning the Avs.

No, what you said was “The Avs get good local ratings on the television station that Kroenke owns. Altitude sports turns that into ad revenue.  Would that revenue be anywhere near where it is if the Avalanche weren’t around?”

That appears to be inferring some amount of information, does it not?

That’s a great non-sequitur.

You don’t know what a non-sequitur is.  You cited stability as a positive.  I responded with my comment to point out that stability is only a positive when the condition being held stable is, itself, positive.

There is no disconnection between premise and conclusion, ergo no non-sequitur.

The idea that he should somehow be making more money for owning them than he currently does simply begs the question about exactly how much money he actually makes for owning them.

Let me respond to this in a few ways:

1) That is a perfectly reasonable question.

2) However, don’t get too lost in the woods here and think this issue is all about Kroenke.  Different owners have very different financial situations.  I merely cited Kroenke and Snider because the Avs and the Flyers are two relatively well-known teams hereabouts.  I could have just as easily cited McConnell and Melnyk.  Or Wang and Vinik.  Et cetera.

3) If unclear figures are a barrier to your support of a position in the affirmative, they should be a barrier to your refutation of a position in the negative.  Be skeptical of all things if you must, but being inconsistently skeptical just makes mudpies.

Personally, I think the Forbes numbers are reasonable approximations of the financial realities.  Your tastes obviously vary.  C’est la vie, as they say.

However, the absence of things you are willing to believe shouldn’t be de facto evidence of what you choose to believe instead.

I do want to circle back to a comment you made slightly earlier though:

In case it wasn’t clear, the Avalanche are in good shape.

And to be clear in turn, I didn’t cite either the Flyers or the Avs to point out teams that were in bad shape.  I pointed out those teams a) because as I said they are known to most fans and b) to illustrate that the financials of the league are out of whack.

As we have seen it is entirely possible for teams to make a meager profit if they do like the Avs and spend very little on players, even if it means the team is awful on the ice.  And it is entirely possible for teams to make a profit if they spend a lot on players as long as they are in a gigantic hockey market.

That said, in order to be ‘stable’ the Avs are running a cut-rate NHL club that’s finished 15th, 8th, 14th and 11th the past 4 years.  I don’t think ‘stability’ in this sense is much of a positive for the league, since we’re dealing with a ‘stable’ team that is awful.

And the Flyers, in a huge market, can barely break even with hockey ops when they spend to the cap.

Yes, both owners have other revenue streams, some of which intermingle with their NHL teams, that further subsidize their bottom lines, but that’s not true of all owners so it remains a point of addition which isn’t terribly fair to employ.

I mean, some players make a lot of money from advertising deals and endorsements.  Is it fair to consider those when talking about the financial lot of players in general?

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/23/12 at 06:43 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

I responded with my comment to point out that stability is only a positive when the condition being held stable is, itself, positive

Making money isn’t positive?

3) If unclear figures are a barrier to your support of a position in the affirmative, they should be a barrier to your refutation of a position in the negative.  Be skeptical of all things if you must, but being inconsistently skeptical just makes mudpies.

All I’ve done is consistently bring new information and new considerations that you have not. I haven’t made any grand claims about one team being a charity.

However, the absence of things you are willing to believe shouldn’t be de facto evidence of what you choose to believe instead.

I’ll happily let my commenting record of the analysis of the Forbes numbers stand in place here.

to illustrate that the financials of the league are out of whack.

You have instead illustrated that the numbers you put your faith in are out of whack. Congrats.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/23/12 at 06:50 PM ET

Avatar

Excellent.  So then making millions to play hockey isn’t really the point for players then either?

Except that being a professional hockey player is a job.  A career.  Being a profession hockey team owner is a hobby.

They should just be playing for love of the game just like owners should own teams for love of the game?

I love my job, but that doesn’t mean I’d do it for free.  But if you make money on a hobby, that’s a cool offshoot of the hobby.

Why is it that only one side is allowed to have profit motives?

The point is not whether they’re allowed to.  The point is that profit is not the motive of owning a team.  Nobody ever decided to own an NHL in an attempt to get rich.  They got rich and decided to buy a team. 

Being an owner is not a career, being a hockey player is.

That’s the difference.

 

Posted by Garth on 10/23/12 at 10:28 PM ET

Avatar

Making money isn’t positive?

Is it a positive when the way for them to make money is to be awful?

All I’ve done is consistently bring new information and new considerations that you have not.

Not really.  What you’ve been doing is chiding me for providing indistinct information, and then provided your own indistinct information.

you have instead illustrated that the numbers you put your faith in are out of whack. Congrats.

Odd.  I seem to recall you chiding me for disagreeing with someone who was a professor of economics for a school in Alberta.  Yet now it appears perfectly fine to baldly disagree with the numbers presented by a publication specializing in business and industry analysis.

Seems a bit inconsistent, no?

Except that being a professional hockey player is a job.  A career.  Being a profession hockey team owner is a hobby.

Oh ho!  Now that’s interesting.  Why is it that playing a sport is now a serious job while owning a team is just for shits and giggles?  Seems like a rather interesting jumping off point for ones opinions, although it does explain the origin of a number of your biases.

But let’s explore this a little deeper.  Is their a financial tipping point where the idea that being an NHL player is a ‘job’ falls away?  Is it still a job if you have 5, 10, 15, 20, 50, 100 mil in the bank already?  At some point if a player is set for life, does playing in the NHL transmogrify from ‘job’ into hobby, and if so, when?

The point is that profit is not the motive of owning a team.  Nobody ever decided to own an NHL in an attempt to get rich.  They got rich and decided to buy a team.

I could argue that nobody ever decided to play in the NHL who sucked at hockey and was awful athletically.  They were good at hockey and skilled athletically and decided to play in the NHL.

That quibble aside, exactly how much money do you think it is reasonable for an NHL owner to have to lose each year, in addition to the 150+ mil they’d spend to get a team in the first place, for the privilege and honor of owning an NHL franchise?

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/24/12 at 05:54 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Not really.  What you’ve been doing is chiding me for providing indistinct information, and then provided your own indistinct information.

I hope that readers can tell the difference between saying that Paul Stastny takes home more money than Stan Kroenke (a measurable diffference) and saying that Stan Kroenke makes more than you say he does because of other considerations.

It’s completely possible that ownership of the Pepsi Center and Altitude TV lose Kroenke money.  We could very well discuss that, but the distinction remains between making an absolute claim (yours) and a general one (mine).  You’ve presented a guess as a fact and I’ve brought more considerations to the table for discussion.  I’ve never presented that I know the absolute truth about Stan Kroenke’s finances; all I’ve done is bring logic and objectivity into this particular rhetoric war where you’ve taken up position that one of the 100 wealthiest businessmen in America is apparently running a chunk of his empire as a “charity” because that one asset held separately from all of his other assets isn’t making as much money as you think he should and that this is evidence that the entire NHL financial system needs to be overhauled in his favor.

The argument that I can’t take issue with what you’ve done because I don’t know the absolute truth is a fairly emotional one coming from such a pragmatist.

Odd.  I seem to recall you chiding me for disagreeing with someone who was a professor of economics for a school in Alberta.  Yet now it appears perfectly fine to baldly disagree with the numbers presented by a publication specializing in business and industry analysis.

Forbes has been completely forthcoming with the limitations on their data and how they come across the numbers. I still agree that they’re the best numbers we have publicly available.  My disagreement lies with people who take them as the complete truth despite what Forbes itself says about their sources.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 10/24/12 at 08:00 AM ET

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com

 

image

image