Here's your 'revenue sharing' from the NHL

[signalIInoise]

...the league would mandate a total revenue-sharing pool of $88.9M, with only $42.9M flowing from the top 10 revenue producers to the bottom 15 — with the remaining $46M created by taxing playoff gate receipts, regardless of the financial status of the postseason participants.

That's right, according to NHL management's glorious revenue sharing plan, the brunt of revenue sharing will be borne by additional charges on your ticket prices.

Source: http://nypost.com/sports/40560.htm

Can we hold out for a better deal? I don't relish the idea of paying even more to watch the Caps stink up the rink.

Click to read more...

 

[CarlRacki]

That's right, according to NHL management's glorious revenue sharing plan, the brunt of revenue sharing will be borne by additional charges on your ticket prices.

Source: http://nypost.com/sports/40560.htm

Can we hold out for a better deal? I don't relish the idea of paying even more to watch the Caps stink up the rink.

Ummm ... methinks you're a little confused. It's not a tax on the ticket that the consumer plays, but rather a tax upon the revenue generated by those ticket sales paid for by the owners. Get it?

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Ummm ... methinks you're a little confused. It's not a tax on the ticket that the consumer plays, but rather a tax upon the revenue generated by those ticket sales paid for by the owners. Get it?

Regardless. It's a poor excuse for revenue sharing.
Next season, if the NHL installs a $30M cap, how will poor Nashville compete with the "big boys"?

 

[Levitate]

it is a rather strange idea...a lot of small market teams rely on making the playoffs to break even or make money...even under a new CBA, they'll still be looking for that extra revenue to break even

but under this plan they'll be getting taxed on the money they make, therefor possibly making them end up losing money. though it's hard to tell what they'll do...would they still get some of the revenue sharing even though they're paying part of it? how does it all work? do playoff teams just not get any of the revenue? meh

 

[me2]

It could amount to a hand out up to $10m per team. Not to be sneezed at.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Regardless. It's a poor excuse for revenue sharing.
Next season, if the NHL installs a $30M cap, how will poor Nashville compete with the "big boys"?

Well, if there really is a salary cap at $30M, the Pred's could spend less than $10M and still be at the same relative salary % (compared to last year) to the DET's of the league. Of course, they wouldn't go down that far, but they could get relatively twice as much "bang for the buck" if they kept their payroll in the low $20M's range.

Splitting $90M between 15 teams would give the Pred's $6M per year, which is 30% of their team payroll from last year.

I think that several markets are going to still lose money, but they will plan on growing the business over time to make it profitable.

 

[VinnyVinnyVici]

All I have to say about this article is three words:

Consider. The. Source.

 

[AM]

what part

it is a rather strange idea...a lot of small market teams rely on making the playoffs to break even or make money...even under a new CBA, they'll still be looking for that extra revenue to break even

but under this plan they'll be getting taxed on the money they make, therefor possibly making them end up losing money. though it's hard to tell what they'll do...would they still get some of the revenue sharing even though they're paying part of it? how does it all work? do playoff teams just not get any of the revenue? meh

Of revenue sharing didnt you get?

1/2 the teams arnt getting any playoff money because they arnt in the playoffs!!!!

Duh

Stay with me now... so the ones in the playoffs share what they are getting!

Yowzers, the owners might be on to something... actually sharing a boon which only goes to select group of teams! Whod have thunk the guys that collect the money streams could actually do it even handedly!

 

[Weary]

All I have to say about this article is three words:

Consider. The. Source.

Brooks's logic may not be the best around, but he is very good at getting his hands on confidential documents and reporting their contents.

 

[Levitate]

i'm sorry you couldn't understand what i was saying, i don't have the energy to clarify, better luck next time

as for the source...the general idea of playoff revenue sharing was put forth in one of the league's official proposals, i think brook's is just fleshing out the details

 

[signalIInoise]

Ummm ... methinks you're a little confused. It's not a tax on the ticket that the consumer plays, but rather a tax upon the revenue generated by those ticket sales paid for by the owners. Get it?

No, I'm not confused at all. When have you ever known an NHL team not to pass along every. little. expense. right back our way through ticket hikes?

When Jar-Jaromir Jagr came to DC, he represented a cover-hike of about a third. When he left, did my crappy seats get any cheaper? As every player of any value was ushered out of town and the Caps got more and more laughable, did any Caps fan get a price break? Have some 'no'.

The economics of hockey fandom are inflationary, never deflationary. Even if we get our teams flooded with scab AHLers next year (no difference for the locals here), will they drop ticket prices one dime? No.

 

[Guest]

I'm still not a big fan of most of the revenue sharing plans I've read about. I kind of liked an idea I had, where every team would be taxed on all players that make above the average league salary. So for instance, you might have Ryan Smyth making over the league max around $3-4 million for Edmonton, assuming the league average is as it was at $1.8 million, you'd see Edmonton forfeit $1.2-2.2 million of the tax revenue they receive as a result. The real key is that the teams that load up with players over the league average would pay the most tax, while the teams like Edmonton who have fewer players above the league average would be appropriately subsized. Also, the system has the ability to balance itself out if teams gain from the proceeds.

 

[Icey]

with the remaining $46M created by taxing playoff gate receipts, regardless of the financial status of the postseason participants.

This is the reason the PA is fighting the leagues revenue sharing plan. This should scare the crap out of every small market team. This revenue sharing plan is a joke.

 

[HabsoluteFate]

That's right, according to NHL management's glorious revenue sharing plan, the brunt of revenue sharing will be borne by additional charges on your ticket prices.

Source: http://nypost.com/sports/40560.htm

Can we hold out for a better deal? I don't relish the idea of paying even more to watch the Caps stink up the rink.

"with the remaining $46M created by taxing playoff gate receipts"

Your Caps wont be making the playoffs for another few years at least so you dont have to worry about them "stinking up" the rink as you call it anytime soon...

Do you honestly think they would alienate the fans even more by increasing playoff ticket prices and making it public knowledge at this point in time? The league has a big problem...they have to win back the fans (which might take time)....not try and lose them
All this 46M is off of current playoff revenues...

 

[Jarqui]

Going back to what any accountant would say about the NHL, payrolls are high and expenses need to be reduced and controlled.

Levitt and the 24% rollback both come out roughly such that the average payroll in the NHL must be roughly $33 mil average for a $2.1 billion league.

If the players want a high cap, then to maintain that high cap and a $33 mil average payroll, revenue sharing MUST be low. If the players lower the cap, then revenue sharing can be higher. It is that fundamental and simple. No matter where the cap is, they have to end up with the $33 mil average or very quickly the league payroll crawls up to where it was.

Unfortunately, Brooks will never grasp that concept in a million years and if he did, he wouldn't have embarrassed himself with the trash he just published above.

 

[HckyFght*]

Regardless. It's a poor excuse for revenue sharing.
Next season, if the NHL installs a $30M cap, how will poor Nashville compete with the "big boys"?

...or, how will the Rangers compete with the little boys?
-H

 

[richardn]

Well, if there really is a salary cap at $30M, the Pred's could spend less than $10M and still be at the same relative salary % (compared to last year) to the DET's of the league. Of course, they wouldn't go down that far, but they could get relatively twice as much "bang for the buck" if they kept their payroll in the low $20M's range.

Splitting $90M between 15 teams would give the Pred's $6M per year, which is 30% of their team payroll from last year.

I think that several markets are going to still lose money, but they will plan on growing the business over time to make it profitable.

10 Million dollar payroll . That is exactly why they need a floor. If a team can't Ice a roster at 25 Mil, they don't deserve to be in the NHL. A 10 Million dollar pay roll would be a hole team of Fringe NHL players making the league minimum.

 

[me2]

10 Million dollar payroll . That is exactly why they need a floor. If a team can't Ice a roster at 25 Mil, they don't deserve to be in the NHL. A 10 Million dollar pay roll would be a hole team of Fringe NHL players making the league minimum.

And that is why you won't see many, if any down that low. Arbitration and the reserve system make it either impossible or implausible that a team could stay at that level.

The only way a team could get close is if they loaded up on $400K/y journeymen and prospects. If a team is that bad, well just maybe they should be allowed to have a $10m payroll because all of their talent players would be boosting the payrolls of other clubs (Lang, Straka, Kovalev, Jagr, etc). If a team is rebuilding at $10m (for sake of argument) its not going to expect to compete for a playoff spot against a $42.5m team. Different situation for what we had where $30m teams were trying to compete for playoff spots with $62.5m teams.

Then again an NHL team could run a $6m payroll under the old system if it wants and the NHLPA had no problems with that. And it wasn't happening.

 

[SENSible1*]

Revenue sharing is a PA cash grab.

Minimum caps only come with linkage.

Risk is shared.

 

[Levitate]

slightly off topic about from this post, but I am finding it amusing how everyone has suddenly become financial geniuses once this whole thing started playing out.

suddenly we're all fantastic accountants and knowledgable sports lawyers eh

the other thing i find amusing is how whenever either side comes out with one position or another, their respective factions immediately tout it out like it's gospel and incorporate it into their language like they've been experts on it for years and years. talk about gulping the kool-aid...

and of course i'll admit i've done it as well...i think it's just sadly amusing we all start thinking we're experts on this stuff when frankly we probably know very little.