Home

Previous Entry | Next Entry

More NHL woes

  • Feb. 4th, 2005 at 9:34 AM
While I'd rather side with guys making an average of 1.7 million dollars a year over guys making $30+ million a year, I think it's time for the players union to do some simple math. The latest proposal that the league offered was a $42 million dollar cap and a $32 million dollar minimum.

There are 30 teams in the league. There are 730 players. (average of just under 25 players per team: 20 active and 4-5 reserve)

The average player salary in 2003-2004 was $1,700,000

$32,000,000 * 30 = $96,000,000
$96,000,000 / 730 = $1,315,068

If every team were at the league minimum, players would be losing about $400,000, or about 24% of their salaries, WHICH THEY ALREADY AGREED TO.

$42,000,000 * 30 = $126,000,000
$126,000,000 / 730 = $1,726,027

If every team in the league capped out, players would be making THE SAME GODDAMNED AVERAGE THEY MADE LAST YEAR, which is, I might add, A LOT OF FUCKING MONEY.

There are five teams in the league that are profitable. The other 25 range from 'treading water' to 'hemorraging cash like a hemophiliac with a head wound'. Players salaries accounted for 75% of league revenues last year. That means that teams had, on average, $14 million left over to pay executive salaries, training staff, equipment, transportation costs, marketing, stadium rent or upkeep, etc.

Fact: The league screwed the proverbial pooch in 1994.
Fact: The league is losing money
Fact: The players will not have jobs if the league folds, which it is in danger of doing.
Fact: It took baseball over 10 years to recover.
Fact: If there is no season this year, the NHL is DO MOTHERFUCKING A.

Thank you.

-pb

Tags:


Comments

[info]leigh137 wrote:
Feb. 4th, 2005 03:07 pm (UTC)
Now, forgive me if I get this wrong, but if they players have agreed to the new contract then what is holding everything up? The team owners? I swear, if hockey doesn't come back soon I'm going to be more than pissed. Doesn't anyone learn from baseball?
[info]pbagosy wrote:
Feb. 4th, 2005 03:11 pm (UTC)
One of the union's proposals offered a 24% salary rollback. Of course, it's meaningless, because the owners know that in five years, the ratios of salaries to income will be exactly the same as they are now, so they rejected it.

The final meeting is today. If they don't have a deal, they cancel the entire season. It'll be the first North American professional sport to lose a whole season to a labor dispute, and the first time since 1919 that the Stanley Cup isn't challened for (last time, it was called off due to a flu epidemic).

Another giant shit sandwich for Hockey to chew on.

-js?!
[info]leigh137 wrote:
Feb. 4th, 2005 04:58 pm (UTC)
So what is their plan? Because this has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard, plus it deprives my little girl of hockey during her most formative months.
Even if they did get the season back, what would they do, just play for the Stanley Cup? How, draw straws to see which teams got to go for the Cup?
[info]pbagosy wrote:
Feb. 4th, 2005 05:02 pm (UTC)
At this point, they could still have a 30-40 game schedule. Back in 94-95, they had a 48-game schedule. It wouldn't be so bad, because then every game would mean so much more, as opposed to the 82 game schedule, where you can loose your first 15 in a row and still finish first in the league.

They don't really have a plan, though. There has been absolutely no news from yesterday's negotiation meeting.

Lillian needs to be a hockey fanatic. I wouldn't mind it if she were a Devils fan, either =P

Just keep her away from the Rangers.

-js?!
[info]leigh137 wrote:
Feb. 4th, 2005 05:20 pm (UTC)
Umm, Lillian can't even stand being in the state of New Jersey most of the time, I can't see her rooting for a Jersey hockey team. :-)
[info]pbagosy wrote:
Feb. 4th, 2005 06:14 pm (UTC)
Hey, I can't stand being there either.

In fact, I've still got that pesky arrest warrant out for me. So I don't go there much, and I'm always nervous when I do.

-js?!
[info]leigh137 wrote:
Feb. 4th, 2005 06:46 pm (UTC)
I don't think they arrest you in NJ for outstanding warrants unless you are waving a gun around screaming, "I have outstanding warrants!!" Not unless it is a warrant for something big, in which case they may actually be looking for you.
[info]pbagosy wrote:
Feb. 4th, 2005 07:03 pm (UTC)
It's a speeding ticket =P

Still, if I get pulled over, and they run my license, I'm a bit of screwed.

-js?!
[info]leigh137 wrote:
Feb. 4th, 2005 07:07 pm (UTC)
Ah, easy enough solved then, don't get pulled over. Though, did you know, for unpaid speeding tickets they can prevent you from getting your license renewed. How much is that speeding ticket? Is it worth not clearing that up? No more driving in NJ scared.
[info]pbagosy wrote:
Feb. 4th, 2005 07:44 pm (UTC)
I've had my liscense renewed since the warrant was issued. Got that back in 1998, and I had to renew in 2002 after it expired (whoops!)

-js?!
[info]leigh137 wrote:
Feb. 4th, 2005 07:50 pm (UTC)
Well isn't that interesting. I've known people who have had their license revoked or not been able to renew their license because of out of state tickets. Very interesting...