Is Revenue Sharing the real battle?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Enoch

This is my boomstick
Jul 2, 2003
14,239
872
Cookeville TN
Its funny to me when people say that revenue sharing is the only thing holding this deal back.

Maybe its that the high end of what the PA wants is 71% of all revenues, and the low end is 43% of all revenues. And they want Revenue Sharing. And they want Arbitration. And they want.....etc., etc., etc.

The owners want player costs to be fixed at 54-55%. The players want 43-71 gauranteed.......These two aren't even close, yet somehow the only thing holding them back is...revenue sharing?!?!

:biglaugh: :biglaugh:

We still have a long way to go people. Its replacement players or nothing next season, and either option is going to drag hockey into a further sinkhole.

Get ready for a long, and frustrating summer. This new "aggressive" meeting plan likely means a meeting every 2 - 3 weeks (yeah I know, aggressive :biglaugh: ), which means updates telling us "No new progress" and "Owners are the root of evil" or "The players are stalling" for the next 6 months.
 
Last edited:

hockeydadx2*

Guest
John Flyers Fan said:
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.
__________________________________
Why should Ed Snider get a pass just because some huge corporation owns his team and has incredibly deep pockets to buy up talent? It's sheer luck that he is in a market the size of Philly, because he got in line for expansion very early. Comcast doesn't need to sell 18000 seats a game to make this whole thing work for them, with their owning the building and getting all of those revenues as well. Plus, they make money on the cable end of things as well.

Philly's a great town; I lived there once and attended many games at the old Spectrum. But it is NOT a great hockey town in the same breath as Detroit or Toronto. The Flyers are clearly the #4 team in the city, by a large margin. This is not some huge hockey hotbed. The old joke used to be that the Flyers had 17000 fans, and they all went to every game (and more than half even lived in South Jersey!). That's why they didn't get nearly the same news coverage as the other teams, unless they were deep into the playoffs. That puts them in the same boat as many of the other teams in the league that play in smaller cities. The only difference is that they are in a huge city compared to Nashville, Pittsburgh, and others.

Rather than get greedy, these corporate jerks should realize that a big national league that is successful will eventually mean more money for everyone, just like the NFL. The Flyers, for example, have no where near the national stature or identity of the (extremely small market) Green Bay Packers (which is completely due to the way the NFL distributes revenues across the board), and if the owners continue their small-minded greedy thinking when it comes to revenue sharing, they never will. They should think of revenue sharing as an investment that will pay off in the long run. Unfortunately, the reason that the NHL just isn't successful as an entire entity is because it has never been able to lose the small-minded mentality. That's why half the people in the US have no idea who the Philadelphia Flyers are.

I'm very much a pro-owner guy in this dispute, but the owners can't scream at the players to be reasonable unless they are all reasonable themselves.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
Enoch said:
Its funny to me when people say that revenue sharing is the only thing holding this deal back.

Maybe its that the high end of what the PA wants is 71% of all revenues, and the low end is 57% of all revenues. And they want Revenue Sharing. And they want Arbitration. And they want.....etc., etc., etc.

The owners want player costs to be fixed at 54-55%. The players want 57-71 gauranteed.......thats more than the owners are willing to give in a maximum!!!! These two aren't even close, yet somehow the only thing holding them back is...revenue sharing?!?!

:biglaugh: :biglaugh:

We still have a long way to go people. Its replacement players or nothing next season, and either option is going to drag hockey into a further sinkhole.

Get ready for a long, and frustrating summer. This new "aggressive" meeting plan likely means a meeting every 2 - 3 weeks (yeah I know, aggressive :biglaugh: ), which means updates telling us "No new progress" and "Owners are the root of evil" or "The players are stalling" for the next 6 months.

That's some interesting math you're using.

High end: $50 million x 30 teams = $1.5 B / $2.1 B = 71%
Low end: $30 million x 30 teams = $0.9 B / $2.1 B = 43%

Before you even suggest or allude to the possibility of all teams spending exactly $50 million, I assure you it's just as likely (if not more likely) that all teams will spend exactly $30 million. Meaning it's impossible.

There's no way the Leafs spend only $30 million. AND, by the same argument, there's no way the Panthers manage to spend $50 million. It will work out to an average payroll, my guess would be somewhere around $40 million per team.

$40 million x 30 teams = $1.2 billion / $2.1 billion = 57%

The owners have always wanted to spend 55%, so let's waste another season to get that extra 2%? Disgusting.

Revenue sharing IS the only thing holding this back. Share a little and the $30-$50 million range will work just fine. Share some more and a $35-$45 million range will work, and would actually be better.
 

NYIsles1*

Guest
RangerBoy said:
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
Why should Dolan share revenue when he claimed to lose 40.9 million to make 85 million? Why should Snider share anything when he claims after going to the semi-finals he still lost money operating his club. If the Leafs can only make 14.4 million operating profit there is just not much to share.

This is a small market sport with small profits. Spending more to lose more is not big market.
 

Weary

Registered User
Jul 1, 2003
1,068
0
NYIsles1 said:
Why should Dolan share revenue when he claimed to lose 40.9 million to make 85 million? Why should Snider share anything when he claims after going to the semi-finals he still lost money operating his club. If the Leafs can only make 14.4 million operating profit there is just not much to share.
With a salary cap in place those numbers will look much better. The Leafs payroll was almost $60M which would put total player costs at about $70M. Even if TO spends the $50M under a salary cap, that turns the $14.4M profit into a $34.4M profit. I think they can afford to share a bit of that.
 

X0ssbar

Guest
gc2005 said:
That's some interesting math you're using.

High end: $50 million x 30 teams = $1.5 B / $2.1 B = 71%
Low end: $30 million x 30 teams = $0.9 B / $2.1 B = 43%

Before you even suggest or allude to the possibility of all teams spending exactly $50 million, I assure you it's just as likely (if not more likely) that all teams will spend exactly $30 million. Meaning it's impossible.

There's no way the Leafs spend only $30 million. AND, by the same argument, there's no way the Panthers manage to spend $50 million. It will work out to an average payroll, my guess would be somewhere around $40 million per team.

$40 million x 30 teams = $1.2 billion / $2.1 billion = 57%

The owners have always wanted to spend 55%, so let's waste another season to get that extra 2%? Disgusting.

Revenue sharing IS the only thing holding this back. Share a little and the $30-$50 million range will work just fine. Share some more and a $35-$45 million range will work, and would actually be better.

I agree. I think revenue sharing is the last hurdle and there is certainly some room to play with in regards to the salary range. I could see the range being around 28 - 45 million with a built in luxury tax kicking in around 35 million.
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
hockeydadx2 said:
Why should Ed Snider get a pass just because some huge corporation owns his team and has incredibly deep pockets to buy up talent? It's sheer luck that he is in a market the size of Philly, because he got in line for expansion very early. Comcast doesn't need to sell 18000 seats a game to make this whole thing work for them, with their owning the building and getting all of those revenues as well.

#1. It's not sheer luck that he owns a team in Philadelphia.

#2. Size of the market doesn't mean everything, while it helps, if market size meant everything Colorado would be in the middle of the pack revenue wise.

#3. Ed Snider PRIVATELY built what is now the Wachovia Center, and therefore should get all the revenues that come with it.

hockeydadx2 said:
Philly's a great town; I lived there once and attended many games at the old Spectrum. But it is NOT a great hockey town in the same breath as Detroit or Toronto. The Flyers are clearly the #4 team in the city, by a large margin. This is not some huge hockey hotbed. The old joke used to be that the Flyers had 17000 fans, and they all went to every game (and more than half even lived in South Jersey!). That's why they didn't get nearly the same news coverage as the other teams, unless they were deep into the playoffs. That puts them in the same boat as many of the other teams in the league that play in smaller cities. The only difference is that they are in a huge city compared to Nashville, Pittsburgh, and others.

Philadelphia is certainly not close to a city like Toronto in terms of being a hockey mad place (I'll argue that Detroit and the whole "Hockeytown" thing is highly overrated).

The whole Philly only has 17,000 hockey fans is also ridiculous. Just in the last 10 years over 25 brand new ice rinks have been built. Now more than 80% of all suburban high schools have ice hockey teams.

The Flyers are not 4th in Philadelphia.

In Philly the Eagles are a clear cut #1, and command more attention than the other 3 teams put together. The Flyers are above the 76ers ... and have been above the Phillies for most of the last 20 years (in large part due to the fact they suck).

hockeydadx2 said:
Rather than get greedy, these corporate jerks should realize that a big national league that is successful will eventually mean more money for everyone, just like the NFL. The Flyers, for example, have no where near the national stature or identity of the (extremely small market) Green Bay Packers (which is completely due to the way the NFL distributes revenues across the board), and if the owners continue their small-minded greedy thinking when it comes to revenue sharing, they never will. They should think of revenue sharing as an investment that will pay off in the long run. Unfortunately, the reason that the NHL just isn't successful as an entire entity is because it has never been able to lose the small-minded mentality. That's why half the people in the US have no idea who the Philadelphia Flyers are.

I'm very much a pro-owner guy in this dispute, but the owners can't scream at the players to be reasonable unless they are all reasonable themselves.

I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be big time revenue sharing, but that if I'm a big market owner at this point I see very few reasons it would benefit me as an owner.

All comparisons to the NFL should stop and stop immediately. Massive revenue sharing and a low salary cap will never get the NHL to be a tenth of what the NFL has. If comparisons have to be made use MLB or the NBA.


The NFL and its new TV deal is larger than the national TV deals that the NBA, MLB, NHL, Nascar, NCAA Basketball Tournament and the PGATour have COMBINED.
 

nyrmessier011

Registered User
Feb 9, 2005
3,358
4
Charlotte/NYC
RangerBoy said:
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:

:clap:
 

NYIsles1*

Guest
Weary said:
With a salary cap in place those numbers will look much better. The Leafs payroll was almost $60M which would put total player costs at about $70M. Even if TO spends the $50M under a salary cap, that turns the $14.4M profit into a $34.4M profit. I think they can afford to share a bit of that.
No doubt a hard cap will make the Leafs more profits but I do not see it that high, the Espn contract for hockey is gone so all the team lose some revenue from what they used to make.

Your also assuming the Leafs come back with the same expectations of winning a Stanley Cup with a veteran team which helped drive team revenue and ticket prices.

If Toronto has to start bringing in young players (less identifiable) and take steps back on the ice and cup expectations are low that 14.4 million they used to make will take a big hit.

So instead of the 34m you project it could be closer to 20m, which they now have to share with other teams. Also they will not be able to sign free agents in the summer as they did in the past.

Asking teams like the Rangers to share revenue with the enormous losses they took to make that revenue combined with all problems moving forward they have in small hockey market and it's understandable why it's tough to get teams to share revenue.
 

nyrmessier011

Registered User
Feb 9, 2005
3,358
4
Charlotte/NYC
I'll tell you what the real battle is at this point. To break the union in 34 pieces and to lock the up guarantee to make money.

Speaking of the owners guarantee to make money, when was the last time you heard of a business that is guaranteed not to fail? I have never heard of a business, big or small, that didn't have some sort of chance at failing as a business. That's life.

The NHL believes there some sort of excemption to the rule.

Hockey is too embedded in so many North American heads that the league would never ever just fold and go bankrupt. Why is that? Because of the linkage--the guarantee to make money as a business. All of you should see that it is quite unfair to allow the NHL owners the guarantee to make money. In the life span of the new CBA there is absolutly no chance of a team failing , IF, they make it through the first two or three years.

I think that is absolutly a bogus thought many people have that the NHL has the right to make money. If you have ever argued that the NHL has the right to linkage, you are saying in fact that you believe they also have the right to make money. When was the last time you saw a business and said, wow "well there nice , they have the right to make money." I bet you never have before.

Whether you want to argue this or not, In my opinion linkage is the guarantee to make a profit if you can survive past a few years. I think the owners just want this guarantee that should not come easy or for free.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
RangerBoy said:
The NHL has won this labor battle. How much more do they want?

That's funny, it still looks like a labour stoppage to me. The players haven't agree to anything, until they sign some papers. And only time will show who "won".

The Iconoclast said:
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.

Yup. Revenue sharing is just a way to line the players pockets. But few here other than ourselves can see that, they only see the "fairness" aspect.

The key for the NHL is getting a deal without loopholes. That's why they're fighting against revenue sharing so much. Otherwise, a season was wasted for nothing.

gc2005 said:
That's some interesting math you're using.
$40 million x 30 teams = $1.2 billion / $2.1 billion = 57%

Indeed. What's this $2.1B you keep referring to? There's not going to be anything near that for *years*.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
PecaFan said:
Indeed. What's this $2.1B you keep referring to? There's not going to be anything near that for *years*.

How do you know? The max and min are based on the "normal" revenue of $2.1 billion. If (when) revenue decreases thanks to the missing season, the max and the min decrease as well. How is anyone arguing that this is a bad deal?
 

garry1221

Registered User
Mar 13, 2003
2,228
0
Walled Lake, Mi
Visit site
I've been strongly against revenue sharing from the beginning. Still am mostly. Had a thought hit me a couple nights ago about it though.

Lets take 56% (midway between the 55% the owners are looking at and the %7% the players lowest %). Total equals 1,176,000,000 Divides up to 39.2 mil/ team.

This leaves the owners with a grand total of 924 mil. Divides up to 30.8 mil/ team. Yes to many they'd say those greedy owners, but that's the money that has to go towards rink expenses, other payroll expenses, bills etc. The figures i just showed are straight 56/44 split between the players and owners.

There's been many times i've heard that if you make even 10 - 15 % profit in your business then you've done a good job. My latest thought was at the end of the year, each team throws 12.5 % of their total revenue into the pot to be distributed evenly among all 30 teams. This money must be used towards players salaries. Which means if a team has their team covered before the revenue sharing money comes, then they must use it towards next year's player salaries. Should any team show in the red after taking the 12.5 % of the total revenue out, then that team is excluded from the revenue sharing pool this year and the following year. The third year, should the team/owner still no signs of significant profit, then the owner will be fined. the fine will be the average of the $ figures paid out by the other 29 teams. This money will be thrown into the pool and divided among the 29 teams. The fourth year, the owner that was showing red,will have to throw in regardless if he shows red or not. This process can keep carrying on in the circuit of 4 years.

An average estimate taken from the 2.1 bil figure would mean each team would pay between 3.85 mil and 8.75 mil each. Granted these are just rough estimates, but using those figures it would equal out to a total of between 115,500,000 and 262,500,000. Average payout to each team would be roughly 6 mil/ team.

taking info from the following sites i calculated a roundabout figure of the most expensive team last year (det) and the least expensive (car)

NHL Fan Cost Index
arena info

Total concessions for detroit last year, including parking, was $64,672,914.66.
with my idea in place they would have thrown $8,084,114.83 into the rev. sharing pot.

Total concessions for carolina last year, inc. parking, was $23,919,040.02.
with my idea in place they would have throwin $2,989,880 into the revenue sharing pot.

Remember these numbers are just a general reference. But to have a space of 5 million dollars that all teams would be putting money in, there could be significant $ figures shared.
 

RangerBoy

Dolan sucks!!!
Mar 3, 2002
44,912
21,238
New York
www.youtube.com
PecaFan said:
That's funny, it still looks like a labour stoppage to me. The players haven't agree to anything, until they sign some papers. And only time will show who "won".

The NHLPA has given in a cap and linkage which will be adjusted up or down.What was the PA's position on a cap and linkage?The NHL pretty much will get everything they wanted in a new CBA.If you don't believe that,then you need to pay more attention.Gary Bettman is trying to squeeze every last drop before he agrees to a deal
 

RangerBoy

Dolan sucks!!!
Mar 3, 2002
44,912
21,238
New York
www.youtube.com
NYIsles1 said:
Asking teams like the Rangers to share revenue with the enormous losses they took to make that revenue combined with all problems moving forward they have in small hockey market and it's understandable why it's tough to get teams to share revenue.

:) :D :shakehead :help:

You can't be serious.Small hockey market?If New York City is a small hockey market,then the NHL should fold their tent and go home.Enormous losses?The hockey department may have lost money but where does all of the other related revenue to hockey go?
 

SENSfreak_03

Registered User
Aug 30, 2002
7,966
0
Regina, SK
Visit site
The NFL and its new TV deal is larger than the national TV deals that the NBA, MLB, NHL, Nascar, NCAA Basketball Tournament and the PGATour have COMBINED

exactly, the nfl system works so well because of the tv deal. the new tv deal package bags each team 125 million. cap or not, if you cant run a team with that money alone you have issues. then add all the consession, ticket, advertising etc..revenues in there, one nfl team has an obscene amount of money to work with. the cap just pretty much garuntees a profit.

compare that to the nhl national tv deal..no money up front, only share possible profits. 0 split 30 ways is still 0. comparing the nhl to the nfl is apples to oranges.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
New Revenue Sharing Plan that the Big market Owners should propose to Bettman ..

The more Reveune you share with the league in any giving NHL season the Higher the Draft pick you get in the entry draft, countered by Team that receives the MOST Revenue via this method gets the worse draft pick in the draft

So you now that is an easier sell that the Good Teams should keep the weaker alive ..

Now that the teams are capped lots of those same teams have no way of spending that money .. So they contribute to the Revenue Sharing pool, in an attempt to buy Crosby and each year the best young players ..and the Pittsburghs and Washingtons that draw the most out of the Revenue Pool get to stay alive..

I bet you numerous Teams would freely Revenue share now ..
 

HockeyCritter

Registered User
Dec 10, 2004
5,656
0
The Messenger said:
New Revenue Sharing Plan that the Big market Owners should propose to Bettman ..

The more Reveune you share with the league in any giving NHL season the Higher the Draft pick you get in the entry draft, countered by Team that receives the MOST Revenue via this method gets the worse draft pick in the draft

So you now that is an easier sell that the Good Teams should keep the weaker alive ..

Now that the teams are capped lots of those same teams have no way of spending that money .. So they contribute to the Revenue Sharing pool, in an attempt to buy Crosby and each year the best young players ..and the Pittsburghs and Washingtons that draw the most out of the Revenue Pool get to stay alive..

I bet you numerous Teams would freely Revenue share now ..
So you’re propose punishing teams that are rebuilding by making it impossible to not only to rebuild but to retain whatever talent they might have? Talk about giving the "haves" even more . . . . sheesh.
 

garry1221

Registered User
Mar 13, 2003
2,228
0
Walled Lake, Mi
Visit site
The Messenger said:
New Revenue Sharing Plan that the Big market Owners should propose to Bettman ..

The more Reveune you share with the league in any giving NHL season the Higher the Draft pick you get in the entry draft, countered by Team that receives the MOST Revenue via this method gets the worse draft pick in the draft

So you now that is an easier sell that the Good Teams should keep the weaker alive ..

Now that the teams are capped lots of those same teams have no way of spending that money .. So they contribute to the Revenue Sharing pool, in an attempt to buy Crosby and each year the best young players ..and the Pittsburghs and Washingtons that draw the most out of the Revenue Pool get to stay alive..

I bet you numerous Teams would freely Revenue share now ..

that's more like an auction, granted interesting ploy, but auction nonetheless, and it still becomes a battle of who's got the deepest pockets, you know there'd be owners reaching deep in their own pockets for a top draw. on the other hand it would make the owners disclose all their revenue without cooking the books as so many people here like to claim.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
RangerBoy said:
The NHLPA has given in a cap and linkage which will be adjusted up or down.What was the PA's position on a cap and linkage?The NHL pretty much will get everything they wanted in a new CBA.If you don't believe that,then you need to pay more attention.Gary Bettman is trying to squeeze every last drop before he agrees to a deal

All of this revenue sharing stuff is BS. Seriously. The NHLPA has NEVER given a damn about the individual teams. NEVER. The only goal they have had is salary escalation, especially for the top 8% of the membership. So NOW they are championing revenue sharing for the "sake" of the smaller markets? I call bullshinguard.

The NHL has offered a guaranteed 55% of revenues. That is a guanteed amount that the players will get even if the member clubs do not spend to that level (which they likely will not). The money in question comes from a escrow account that all member teams pay into based on a sliding scale of their revenues. This is the revenue sharing that the NHL has guaranteed the players they would get. This is money that the NHLPA is guarateed getting, even when the NHL clubs do not spend t the levels that the NHLPA would like. Its a guaranteed money source for the players association. So why is the NHLPA not happy with this form or revenue sharing, one that would always be there and guarantee them the money they signed on to get?

The NHLPA hates this concept because it off loads the responsibility of distribution of these funds fromthe NHL and places it on the NHLPA's shoulders. What the NHL is doing is giving the players the money and allowing them to distribute it, thus preventing the agents from using the sharing revenues as an escalatory mechanism in the big picture. The NHL is making sure that the revenue sharing is not used as a escalation mechanism and is placed into the NHLPA's hands directly so that they are responsible to distribution of the excess revenues. This is bad for the PA as it takes away that one sure fire escalation mechanism they were counting on using to their advantage. The NHL guarantees this mechanism cannot be used and also guarantees that ALL players will get their equal share of the sharing revenue and not just those that the individual markets decide to spend it on. This handcuffs the PA and the agents in their bid to run salaries up through the roof again.

I ask the PA supporters the same question. If you are guaranteed getting 55% of revenues, why do you care where it comes from? All you should care about is making sure that ALL revenues are accounted for and GROWING the game so your 55% keeps getting bigger. If the money is dropped as one lump sum into your lap at the end of the season, you're still getting your dough. So what does it matter whether the money is from an escrow account, that the NHLPA cannot use as an escalation mechanism (something I think we can all agree is a massive negative for the game of hockey) as long as the NHLPA gets their 55% as contracturally agreed to by the NHL?
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
gc2005 said:
How do you know? The max and min are based on the "normal" revenue of $2.1 billion. If (when) revenue decreases thanks to the missing season, the max and the min decrease as well.

We know the league has already lost their big tv contract. So that's a couple hundred million there, I believe. Numerous other sponsors have dropped out, they couldn't afford to just sit quietly and not advertise. Countless fans have moved on as well, taking that season ticket money and spending it on something else. Who knows how many of them will stay away permanently? Even some of the casual game day fans will be gone forever.

It's impossible to close your business down for a year or more, and not affect revenues. Can't be done.

So your average calculation is really going to be something more like:
$40 million x 30 teams = $1.2 billion / $1.8 billion = 67%
$40 million x 30 teams = $1.2 billion / $1.9 billion = 63%

A far different picture than your "disgusting only 2% diff" stuff.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
The Iconoclast said:
I ask the PA supporters the same question. If you are guaranteed getting 55% of revenues, why do you care where it comes from? All you should care about is making sure that ALL revenues are accounted for and GROWING the game so your 55% keeps getting bigger. If the money is dropped as one lump sum into your lap at the end of the season, you're still getting your dough. So what does it matter whether the money is from an escrow account, that the NHLPA cannot use as an escalation mechanism (something I think we can all agree is a massive negative for the game of hockey) as long as the NHLPA gets their 55% as contracturally agreed to by the NHL?

Flip it around, if the owners are guaranteed 45% of all revenues, why bother with a salary cap, abolishing arbitration, rookie contracts, reduced qualifying offers and a rollback? Why should they care if they spend 60% in salaries if they'll get 5% of that back at the end of the year from an escrow account? Who cares if salaries inflate when the chunk of the players salary over 55% goes right back to the owners? So what if Florida can only afford a $10M payroll and Toronto can afford $70M, at the end of the day the owners will have their 45%.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
PecaFan said:
We know the league has already lost their big tv contract. So that's a couple hundred million there, I believe. Numerous other sponsors have dropped out, they couldn't afford to just sit quietly and not advertise. Countless fans have moved on as well, taking that season ticket money and spending it on something else. Who knows how many of them will stay away permanently? Even some of the casual game day fans will be gone forever.

It's impossible to close your business down for a year or more, and not affect revenues. Can't be done.

So your average calculation is really going to be something more like:
$40 million x 30 teams = $1.2 billion / $1.8 billion = 67%
$40 million x 30 teams = $1.2 billion / $1.9 billion = 63%

A far different picture than your "disgusting only 2% diff" stuff.

I'm not arguing that revenues won't go down. But no one knows what they'll be. This supposed offer adjusts the range downward if revenues go down, so it's not an issue. Why set up a structure on the assumption that revenues will only be $1 billion? What happens if you do that and it turns out that the new rules have fans coming in by the millions and revenues are over $2 billion?
 

NYIsles1*

Guest
RangerBoy said:
You can't be serious.Small hockey market?If New York City is a small hockey market,then the NHL should fold their tent and go home.
Absolutely a small hockey market. When only 60,000 homes watch an 80m dollar team trap for six months in a half-filled building with almost no media that is a small hockey market. Time to live in the present, not 1994, not 1980. The Red Sox now get more coverage in New York than the Rangers. Sather's signing of Jagr looked like a minor league move in New York compared to A-Rod.

I bet even the Canes and Predators if they iced an 80m dollar team could come close to 60,000 homes to tune in if 82 games were on television.

Maybe Dolan should stop buying free agents because no one paid attention in Mr Steinbrenner's town, even in baseball's off-season.

RangerBoy said:
Enormous losses?The hockey department may have lost money but where does all of the other related revenue to hockey go?
The revenue reported was 85m, the team spent 80m on payroll to generate that much. Dolan claimed 40.9m in losses. Where is all this other revenue coming from you talk about? Dolan overpaid the Isles for television rights by so much he pays out more on the Isles then he can take in with the Rangers. Moving forward, Dolan had to again overpay last summer to keep the Devils from going with Comcast...

Rupert Murdoch not only walked away from being partnered 40/60 Msg/Fox, he gladly took other stations broke up the merger.

I do not blame Dolan one bit for not wanting any part of giving up revenue's he makes as long as his hockey business losses money.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jaws

Registered User
Mar 12, 2005
128
0
Stittsvegas
mr gib said:
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 -

So your saying that MLB's system is better than the NFL because they have a luxury tax while the NFL has revenue sharing? I don't think so. Revenue sharing, is, in fact, a cap in itself, because it forces teams to share its revenues with other teams instead of allowing them to spend it on their own team.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->