Cap'n Clutch wrote:
shabbs wrote:I think Bettman may start to sweat this time around... hopefully someone is sweating and gives in soon. Hopefully!
Not sure why people keep saying Bettman will break... has he ever broken? He is clearly of the mindset that the fans will come back (point for the owners and players), he has never broken in negotiations (point for the owners), he has money coming into the owners for TV deal even during a lockout (point for the owners), and Pheonix, Columbus, and a dozen other teams lose less during a lockout then they otherwise would (point for the owners).
Where on earth does Fehr have the balls to say to the players "the owners will break" or w/e else. He was up against Selig in MLB, a former owner who had no business at the table with Fehr to begin with. He's against Bettman, a guy who cancelled an entire season to get what he wants... this won't be any different if the players don't link their salaries to revenue, that's what they lost an entire year for before... won't change.
The ten or so teams that practically print money when there's games will start to get really pissed off if there's yet another entire season lost. Do you really think the Leafs are happy right now? Sure they were happy when the cap came in but they're losing out on buckets of money for every lost game.
But did they make more money following the lockout? The Maple Leafs were worth $280M prior to the lockout, and were worth $521M in January (Forbes). That's a gain of $241M, or 86% Certainly, if they were going to sell (they just did, so a bit of a moot point) then the lockout was very, *very* good for them. On top of that, their payroll went from $61.8M before the lockout, to $39M when the lockout ended. Last season the cap was $64.3M, which is just 4% in 7 years (annual growth of only 0.568% -- well below inflation).
So, yeah, the lockout was very, very good for the Leafs. The Leafs had an operating income of just $15M in 2001, primarily because of salaries. With the cap in place, their operating income last season was $83M. So they lost $15M from not playing in 2004, but their payroll dropped over $22M in the 2005-06 season. And they were still selling out and did not drop ticket prices, so if you assume they would have made $30M in 2004 and 2005 (without a lockout) they made up $22M of that in the first year back, and 7 years later they were clearing more than 5x what they did before the lockout. I'd say they were better than break-even in the second year post lockout.
Granted, the numbers this time around are different, and it will take them longer to make up the $83M lost that it did last time, but they are looking at a 5-7 year plan.