Is Revenue Sharing the real battle?

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by RangerBoy, Apr 20, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. RangerBoy

    RangerBoy TRUST THE PROCESS

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    38,128
    Likes Received:
    1,476
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    New York
    Home Page:
    The NHL can not depend upon the NHLPA to solve all of their problems.The NHL has won this labor battle.How much more do they want?The NHLPA has been grinded down so much that a salary cap and linkage will be part of the new CBA

    Revenue sharing is the remaining element and the NHLPA has nothing to do with that issue.That is Gary Bettman's problem

    Yesterday the NHL and NHLPA spent most of the meeting discussing revenue sharing ideas

    Revenue sharing has clearly moved atop the priority list in collective bargaining between the NHL and NHL Players Association. The two sides met for six-and-a-half hours yesterday in Manhattan and according to a person with knowledge of the situation, the sides discussed revenue sharing and the union offered some ideas regarding a significant revenue sharing system that most of the NHL's big-money teams remain opposed to.

    A person with knowledge of the union's thinking, however, said, "There's not going to be any agreement until they get all of the owners on the same page" regarding a significant revenue sharing plan. "There cannot be this partnership with the players until they have a partnership among themselves," the person added

    http://www.newsday.com/sports/hockey/ny-spnhl204225760apr20,0,774906.story?coll=ny-hockey-headlines

    What is the problem with revenue sharing?The NHL has the least amount of revenue sharing in any sport.Some of the big money teams own the team,building and have a regional sports network.Every revenue stream goes into the same pot

    The high-revenue clubs are opposed to giving a greater share of their revenues to the small-market clubs. This idea is a basic staple behind every one of the NHLPA's proposals.

    Bettman met with Toronto Maple Leafs boss Larry Tannenbaum recently asking for his support for disproportionate revenue-sharing. If Tannenbaum agrees, so will Flyers chairman Ed Snider. If those two agree, other wealthy clubs are expected to fall in line.

    Bettman did not contact the Flyers, Snider said. But Snider, who has opposed disproportionate revenue-sharing on the grounds that small-market clubs will never be able to market themselves as well as the Flyers do, appears to be willing to accede to Bettman's wishes - if other wealthy franchises agree.

    "We are fully in support of whatever the league's position will be," Snider said


    http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/sports/11437048.htm

    The Flyers are owned by Comcast which is the largest cable operator in the United States.Do the Flyers market themselves better than a small market franchise?They don't have to market their team.The fan base does not need to have the Flyers push tickets on them.Why is Snider against revenue sharing?The Flyers are still going to make tremendous profits under a cap system.Comcast owns the team,building and a sports network.Just like my favorite team the Rangers.The ticket revenue,the signage,the advertising in the building,the advertising on the sports network and the beer money goes into the same pot
     
  2. Ola

    Ola Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    24,242
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Lawyer
    Location:
    Sweden
    I agree with you 100%.
     
  3. futurcorerock

    futurcorerock Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,831
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    I think Revenue Sharing is easier to sell than everyone thinks.

    It's simple. Tell Toronto, Detroit that they dont have to share their revenues, but come October we will be playing with Replacements.

    Otherwise, share.
     
  4. BLONG7

    BLONG7 Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2002
    Messages:
    19,671
    Likes Received:
    1,289
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Home Page:
    As a pro owner guy, they will have to realize that the key is revenue sharing...the union is looking at a cap, and possibly with linkage, the owners do need to get on the same page about revenue sharing and I think the deal will get done.
     
  5. CGG

    CGG Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Messages:
    4,119
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Location:
    416
    Amazing how it's the players that get painted as greedy when we have a bunch of owners who want to slash their payroll by millions with a salary cap and keep all the money for themselves instead of spreading the wealth around a little which would actually make the league healthy and sustainable and put everyone on (roughly) the same economic ground, just like they claim to want.

    Seems like some of the same owners that are against replacement players are against revenue sharing (Toronto, anyone?) but desperately want hockey back on the ice so they can start making millions again. What in the heck is thier plan to end this thing?
     
  6. X0ssbar

    X0ssbar Guest

    Yea.. I have been predominately pro-owner during this deal but the 'PA has essentially gave into a cap and linkage.. Its time for the NHL to step up with a significant revenue sharing plan - this is one point I do agree with the 'PA on.

    I think once a significant revenue sharing plan is on the table the gap can be closed on the payroll range and other smaller issues negotiated. The Toronto's of the world are going to have to bite the bullet and agree to share significant revenues. If not, then replacements are in the league's future.
     
  7. RangerBoy

    RangerBoy TRUST THE PROCESS

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    38,128
    Likes Received:
    1,476
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    New York
    Home Page:
    I'm pro-owner but the NHL needs to step up the plate.Some of these owners including James Dolan of the Rangers support the NHL's position of getting a cap which will put more money in their pockets but they do not want to share the wealth.No owner is going to make a dime without the NHLPA players.Scab hockey will be a joke
     
  8. Levitate

    Levitate Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    25,448
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    154
    has dolan actually said he doesn't want revenue sharing?

    I haven't really heard anything out of the rangers during all this...
     
  9. Colorado Avalanche

    Colorado Avalanche Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    20,029
    Likes Received:
    204
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Location:
    Lieto
    revenue sharing sucks, poor teams have to get their money somewhere else :p:

    that's totally stupid, why would avs give money to someone if they are already losing money? :madfire:
     
  10. CGG

    CGG Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Messages:
    4,119
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Location:
    416
    If they are in fact losing money, the cap will guarantee that their salary structure has to be chopped by 10's of millions of dollars, some of that savings should go to other teams. You can't have a salary cap without some form of actual revenue sharing.
     
  11. Revenue sharing is a red herring. All that mechanism is, is a way for the PA and agents to define a stream of income that they can milk to maintain salary escalation. No one can cry poor when negotiating a contract for a star player when there is a transfer payment sitting there and the PA knows exactly how much money that transfer is worth. If this is where revenue sharing resources go I am dead set against the concept and would prefer the league left the players on the curb.

    Now if revenue sharing were instituted in a fashion that met the objections of Snyder and ilk, then I am all for the concept. Snyder complains that the small market teams will never be able to market their teams like the Flyers can. Well if the revenue sharing transfers were ONLY allowed for marketing and fan development purposes then I am in agreement that revenue sharing is a fantastic idea. But the minute one cent of revenue sharing money goes into salaries (past the salary floor) the system becomes broken and the players have been given their loophole they so desperately need to continue escalation of the top 8% earners in the game.
     
  12. HockeyCritter

    HockeyCritter Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,656
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This sounds a lot like a bunch of kids

    “You do itâ€

    “No, you do itâ€

    “I’ll go if you goâ€

    “But you have to go firstâ€

    “I don’t wanna go firstâ€

    “We’l go togetherâ€
     
  13. eye

    eye Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    around the 49th para
    Home Page:
    Goodenow has dug himself and his members into a very deep hole and is using revenue sharing as an excuse not to get a deal done. He is trying to make the best out of a bad situation that he only has himself to blame for. He could have had a much better deal for his players back in the fall but his own ego got in the way.

    This thing can get solved in a Pope selection heartbeat once Linden and others finally show some balls and realize they only have once choice left in order to get a deal done before the start of next season and he only has a few days left to make this decision. FIRE BOB and the framework for a deal will get done within days. :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
     
  14. Volcanologist

    Volcanologist Used Register

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Messages:
    22,515
    Likes Received:
    330
    Trophy Points:
    199
    Location:
    Toronto
    Why do I get the feeling you would be writing this kind of crap no matter what happened or didn't happen?
     
  15. RangerBoy

    RangerBoy TRUST THE PROCESS

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    38,128
    Likes Received:
    1,476
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    New York
    Home Page:
    Dolan is busy fighting his father over Voom,fighting Time Warner over the MSG/FSNY on Time Warner Cable,fighting the Jets and City Hall over the westside stadium and launching $17 billion bids for Adelphia cable which leaves every company observer scratching their heads.See Dolan has his priorities in order by having Glen Sather,Isiah Thomas and Steve Mills drive his teams into the toilet :help:
     
  16. jaws

    jaws Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2005
    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Stittsvegas
    The PA should've been hardcore on the revenue sharing since day one. I know it was there proposals, but they didn't not press the issue like they should have. Revenue sharing is one of the best ways to show how greedy the owners are to fans, they gotta keeper goin on this.

    The only problem with revenue sharing is the owners can still hide money. I say if the PA gets the NHL to take the revenue sharing, then press for a 3rd party to control and determine what revenues are coming in.
     
  17. Uther

    Uther Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Why stop here? Why don't we take the model one step further. I'm all for Revenue sharing if the players accept salary sharing. Just as the league needs it's member teams to be "partners" and share the wealth to be successful, the players on a team are partners and need each other to be successful. Their compensation should therefore be based on their relative value to their team.

    Working within the salary cap / salary floor model, lets say each team spends between 30 and 40 million on salary. Rather than sign players to contracts that specify a dollar amount, give the entire salary pool for the individual teams over to the players on that team. It is then up to the 23 guys on the roster to work out who gets paid what based on his perceived value according to his teammates.

    The better players, or more correctly, the players who perform at a high level, would still earn the most money and fans wouldn't have to worry that individual salaries would preclude teams from adding a supporting cast to a star player. Salaries could be adjusted monthly/quarterly/yearly by the players. This would also serve to close the gap between the high-end and low-end salaries and make the overall payroll distribution more equitable.

    After all, isn't the goal of revenue sharing to ensure competitiveness between teams regardless of market size? Salary sharing amongst the players would help to ensure competitiveness by tying each player's salary to his performance as judged by his peers.
     
  18. John Flyers Fan

    John Flyers Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    22,416
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Six teams were added to the NHL in 1967, all in markets that had very very little exposure to hockey.

    Ed Snider ran his oraganization better than the teams in Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Los Angeles, Minnesota and Oakland. Why should Snider have to share $0.01 of money with a team like Pittsburgh ???

    ===============================================

    This is the biggest argument IMO.

    If I'm player and they're asking us to form a partership with the league, I'm saying no way until Toronto, Philly, New York etc. form a partership with Nashville, Pittsburgh etc.

    If I'm Ed Snider/Comcast and have spent nearly 40 years building and cultivating a fan base, why should I have to share that money with other more incompetent ownership groups.
     
  19. eye

    eye Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    around the 49th para
    Home Page:
    There has to be excess revenue or profits in order to share them. It will be years before teams in the NHL make a profit again and that's only if they manage to fix the game and get it played the way it was meant to be played. The longer this work stoppage goes on the less revenue there is to share. Why the need for days off between negotiation meetings? The answer is simple - nobody can stand to be in the same room with Goodenow and Saskin for longer than a few hours in a given period of time. Players know it but are not sure on how to get rid of Goodenow. It's all up to Linden to do what needs to be done.

    If you can't see that Goodenow is just using this as another smoke screan and stal tactic then I can't help you and it won't matter what I or anyone else with an ounce of hockey and business knowledge has to say to you.
     
  20. RangerBoy

    RangerBoy TRUST THE PROCESS

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    38,128
    Likes Received:
    1,476
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    New York
    Home Page:
    What is the solution?There is no easy solution.George Steinbrenner bought the Yankees in 1973 and he poured money to build the Yankee brand.Now he contributes $60 million per year in revenue sharing and luxury tax with many of the other owners sticking the money in their pockets
     
  21. mr gib

    mr gib Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2004
    Messages:
    5,853
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    rock and roller
    Location:
    vancouver
    Home Page:
    revenue sharing is the trade for a cap - luxury tax is how to give back money to the smaller clubs - of course the only problem is you can't make the owner's spend it on the team -
     
  22. HockeyCritter

    HockeyCritter Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,656
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sure you can - - write it into the CBA that x-percent of monies received via revenue sharing/tax must be spent on the team.
     
  23. mr gib

    mr gib Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2004
    Messages:
    5,853
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    rock and roller
    Location:
    vancouver
    Home Page:
    ya like thats gonna fly -
     
  24. CGG

    CGG Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Messages:
    4,119
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Location:
    416
    Dude, the framework for a deal is already done. $30 min, $50 max, based on "normal" revenues of $2.1 billion. Cap goes down if revenues go down. There you have it. It's exactly what the owners wanted. But the owners don't want to use it becuase they'd have to share revenues.

    If you're looking for excess revenue or profits, well you got it. Toronto made exhorbitant profits under the old CBA with a $65 million payroll. Cut that to $50 million, maybe even lower, and you have at least $15 million in excess profits. Repeat with Philly, Colorado, Detroit, Dallas, etc etc etc.

    Don't recycle crap about stall tactics and smoke screens and actually look at what's there, on the table, right now. There's your framework. If Gary came up with this, you'd be rejoicing at how wonderful it is. But since you're convinced Goodenow is the devil, it's crap. If Bob proposed a $2 million salary cap I'm sure you'd somehow find a way to still hate it.
     
  25. Volcanologist

    Volcanologist Used Register

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Messages:
    22,515
    Likes Received:
    330
    Trophy Points:
    199
    Location:
    Toronto
    You're flat-out making all of this up.

    Smoke screen for what?

    I didn't ask for your help, and I wouldn't be too quick to lump yourself in with the knowledgable.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"