Let's talk about revenue sharing.... (TSN News)

[Gary]

I'm a fan of a rich team (philly), and I'm not opposed to revenue sharing. I think it is completely unfair, however as you said it IS good for the overall health of the league. It also makes for more competitive games that are a lot more fun to watch.

I'd much rather see my team win the cup through building and thriftiness then through opening a pocketbook. Heck, I'm a Bruins' fan and I saw Bourque go to Colorado just for a cup...Wonder how Avs fans feel about that? Obviously great to have him, great to have won and all too-But it seems more then a little tainted to me. If we would've won after cashing in on the Caps firesale last year (Nylander and Gonchar) that would'nt have felt very good to me-especially if they were intricate pieces to the puzzle. One guys oppinion...

 

[Jag68Sid87]

Yeah, but Bettman risks seeing his entire united BOG unravel into factions on this issue, so he must tread lightly. If this whole situation turns into a Bettman vs. a few big-market owners on the revenue-sharing issue, then Goodenow will just sit back, plan more golf outings in exotic locales and wait it out.

I don't think the revenue-sharing issue will ever get to the point where Bettman has to negotiate within the BOG. If so, he's going to lose a battle he seemingly CANNOT lose.

 

[Gary]

(i.e. asking for a good return on my investment).

The stability/growth/competitiveness of the league along with the new rule changes to speed up the game and make it more exciting for the 'casual' fan, coupled no doubt with a fierce marketing drive to draw new fans would be a good return on your investment too. Once this happens, teams won't have to fork out so much (in any) money to lower teams. When the lesser teams start making a little $$$, things can be restructured. Right now, it's not about what's fair, it's about what's it going to take to have a healthy, 30 teams NHL in the future IMO.

 

[Drury_Sakic]

up untill 2 summers , the Avs had never really gone out and "bought" anyone... Kariya and Selanne were the first major pieces we brought in on the UFA market.. This past summer we also signed a few roll players/3rd-4th liners....that really was a first...


Bourque, Fluery, Blake, and comp.

The Avs, for all rights, earned them....

Deadmarsh-Miller for Blake

More than fair for both clubs, if Deader had not gotten hurt a year ago the Kings arguably might be getting the better return on the deal at this point. Not to mention the 2 or was it 3 1st round picks?

Bourque-Rolston and change

Bourque came relatively cheap for the simple fact that everyone thought he was one and done. Of course the Avs failed, and he came back. So the Avs got more bang for their buck. And no, I think you would be hard pressed to find an Avs fan who thinks the cup was tainted in the least by him being with us, he was the driving force that got the team over Foppa's loss that year.

Fluery-Regehr and change

Anyone think the Avs got the better end of the deal here?

Throughout that all(the 3 years of WCF in a row, 2 losses to Dallas), the Core stayed the same... Forsberg, Sakic, Foote, Yelle, Podein, Messier, Drury, Tanguay, Roy, Hejduk, Skoula ..

My point is.. The Avs have not gone out and bought players unfairly.. their money advantage has just allowed them to KEEP the players they draft/use picks/players to trade....



What that has to do with this thead... I don't really know anymore..

 

[Cawz]

The Avs, for all rights, earned them....

Deadmarsh-Miller for Blake

More than fair for both clubs, if Deader had not gotten hurt a year ago the Kings arguably might be getting the better return on the deal at this point. Not to mention the 2 or was it 3 1st round picks?

Holy, you mention the 2 or 3 1st round picks (I belive it was 1 by the way) but you "forget" to mention that Reinprect came over with Blake?

"2001-Feb-21 Rob Blake traded from Los-Angeles Kings with Steven Reinprecht to Colorado Avalanche for Adam Deadmarsh and Aaron Miller and Jared Aulin and Round 1 pick in the 2001 draft (Dave Steckel)"

Thats quite the omission, since the Colorado throw-ins have 4 nhl games between them, and Reinprect would have been Calgary's 1st line center if he wasnt hurt last year.

Bourque-Rolston and change

Bourque came relatively cheap for the simple fact that everyone thought he was one and done. Of course the Avs failed, and he came back. So the Avs got more bang for their buck. And no, I think you would be hard pressed to find an Avs fan who thinks the cup was tainted in the least by him being with us, he was the driving force that got the team over Foppa's loss that year.?

So you mention the change that came over with Rolston and "forget" to mention that Dave Andreychuk was traded along with Bourque to the Avs? Once again, thats quite the omission.

Fluery-Regehr and change

Anyone think the Avs got the better end of the deal here?

My point is.. The Avs have not gone out and bought players unfairly.. their money advantage has just allowed them to KEEP the players they draft/use picks/players to trade....

Well, at the time Fleury instantly ended up #3 in team scoring. Ray Bourque became #4. Blake became #6 (and #2 the next year). Reinprect #8.

Basically, it helps if you can give up little to instantly get an impact player, like Colorado did years in a row. Yes, they gave up prospects like Regehr, but if they can just trade more prospects for them later, when they blossom into a superstar, then theres no real loss.

So no, they didnt buy any players, but they definatly traded from a position of strength, giving up less to obtain instant impact players for the strech run 3 years in a row.

...since you brought it up.

 

[kdb209]

up untill 2 summers , the Avs had never really gone out and "bought" anyone... Kariya and Selanne were the first major pieces we brought in on the UFA market.. This past summer we also signed a few roll players/3rd-4th liners....that really was a first...


Bourque, Fluery, Blake, and comp.

The Avs, for all rights, earned them....

Deadmarsh-Miller for Blake

More than fair for both clubs, if Deader had not gotten hurt a year ago the Kings arguably might be getting the better return on the deal at this point. Not to mention the 2 or was it 3 1st round picks?

My point is.. The Avs have not gone out and bought players unfairly.. their money advantage has just allowed them to KEEP the players they draft/use picks/players to trade....

Someone else has pointed out the other elements of the Blake trade - Reinprecht and 1 first rounder.

But remember that the only reason the Kings were even willing to trade Blake in the first place was that he was a pending UFA that they could not afford to resign, so they were forced to trade him to get some (and in this case better than your typical rent-a-player deal) value rather than just losing him for nothing. The Av's then resigned Blake as a UFA. Using your dollars to trade for a player that you can afford to sign (and his old team cannot) and then resigning him as a UFA is not very different in my book than just signing him as a UFA - only you were paying extra for the 1/4 season & playoffs as a rent-a-player and the intangibles of making it easier to resign him as a UFA.

 

[R0CKET]

I am as big of a pro-Management guy as there is but without some real revenue sharing this game will continue to flounder.

IMO the best way to get this right is to take all (or 85-90%) of the Playoff money and dispese it equally to the League. I feel like all the teams in the league made the season what it was and they too should bennfit from the payoff for this tournamant. As the playoffs get closer to the cup being awarded the fan attention goes up and so do the ticket values (game 7 seats aren't exactly easily had), so I feel that the league should structure these cash streams to replenish all the teams that made the league strong. I mean even if some super-elite team was put together they couldn't make any money without other legitamate comptetition to play against. So, IMO those teams made that competition for the Detroit's and Colorado's to prosper and I feel like they should ALSO be rewarded financially (but a some lower amount) than the actual teams that make the playoffs.

I am pointing this out because its a simple practical reality that MUST be addressed. We are all talking about teams going under where the markets for hockey (or the market itself) is small and I for one don't want to wake up some day and find the Flames & Oilers moving to the states or going out of business completely. Today we are thinking Carolina, Florida et all but not very soon after I fell like these 2 are next.

 

[GirardIsStupid]

(i.e. asking for a good return on my investment).

The stability/growth/competitiveness of the league along with the new rule changes to speed up the game and make it more exciting for the 'casual' fan, coupled no doubt with a fierce marketing drive to draw new fans would be a good return on your investment too. Once this happens, teams won't have to fork out so much (in any) money to lower teams. When the lesser teams start making a little $$$, things can be restructured. Right now, it's not about what's fair, it's about what's it going to take to have a healthy, 30 teams NHL in the future IMO.

To be honest, I would prefer a league of 20-24 teams. I know some people who also feel the same way because they also believe it would improve the quality of hockey. I think many people in Canada wouldn't shed a tear if Nashville, Florida, Carolina, Anaheim, Atlanta, and Phoenix lost their franchises because there is also a perceived belief these non-traditional hockey markets aren't deserving of hockey teams.

 

[jaws]

I am as big of a pro-Management guy as there is but without some real revenue sharing this game will continue to flounder.

IMO the best way to get this right is to take all (or 85-90%) of the Playoff money and dispese it equally to the League. I feel like all the teams in the league made the season what it was and they too should bennfit from the payoff for this tournamant. As the playoffs get closer to the cup being awarded the fan attention goes up and so do the ticket values (game 7 seats aren't exactly easily had), so I feel that the league should structure these cash streams to replenish all the teams that made the league strong. I mean even if some super-elite team was put together they couldn't make any money without other legitamate comptetition to play against. So, IMO those teams made that competition for the Detroit's and Colorado's to prosper and I feel like they should ALSO be rewarded financially (but a some lower amount) than the actual teams that make the playoffs.

I am pointing this out because its a simple practical reality that MUST be addressed. We are all talking about teams going under where the markets for hockey (or the market itself) is small and I for one don't want to wake up some day and find the Flames & Oilers moving to the states or going out of business completely. Today we are thinking Carolina, Florida et all but not very soon after I fell like these 2 are next.

Its funny, you being a pro-owner guy, thus I assume agree with their cost certainty statements, yet believe sharing playoff revenue, something that is uncertain, is the solution. The NHL actually has this idea, thus favouring both cost certainty, and revenue uncertainty. What happens if all series go 4 games? Unlikely, but neither is it likely that all series will go 7 games, hence the uncertainty of the amount of revenue that will be shared. Also, if the revenue sharing is only to be done in the playoffs, why bother making the playoffs? Spend $60 million so I might get in? Sorry, I might as well stick with my $20-30 million....

If the NHL gets there way, there will never be substancial revenue sharing. Bettman going to T.O for revenue sharing is just a show. The 2nd poster here said it all. Basically saying he was a Leaf fan, thus felt its his team's money, so too bad for the small markets, them's the breaks. Well, that's exactly how Boston, Philly, Detriot, Chicago, Toronto, New York, Avs, Dallas, and St. Louis feel, so don't count on major, NFL like revenue sharing, because these guys are all for themselves, and not for the league. Could you imagen Bill Wirtz sharing the money he makes? The guy stole from his niece's trust fund for cryin out loud!

http://www.careermisconduct.com/

 

[dolfanar]

I give this quote a big thumbs down.

I don't like the notion of revenue sharing since I cheer for the avalanche. to be quite honest, I'd rather see contraction of the small market clubs than have teams like colorado lose their financial advantage. but, this issue could be a deal breaker and if the large market owners cave on this issue, I'll have oodles of more respect for them. If it gets a deal done, I am for it. In fact, I these large market owners owe it to other teams to share their revenues since they helped create this lock out with their lavish spending.

I also don't think hockey needs significant revenue sharing to grow. What it requires is a better product which = more TV revenues for every team in the league. The game needs to be changed in order for it to grow. having small market clubs as competitive as the big market ones, on the other hand, would be a luxury.

In the end, I don't think bettman's meeting with MLSE (who are owned by the teacher's pension fund???) will go over well. I think they'll accept revenue sharing to some extent...but not in the manner that it allows other teams like nashville to mooch off of their earnings. I also don't want to see it happen.

Ofcourse that would mean Colorado being contracted if the team fell from grace.

Colorado is a large market now, but put in a league with just the Detroit's, New York 's and Toronto's... Colorado would become a farm team VERY fast. Everything is relative, and for a fan of a pseudo "big market team" in a city that failed to maintain an NHL team the first time to call for contraction is laughable at best.

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

Ok, Florida Panthers, you want revenue sharing? Here is an offer you can't refuse. Make a deal with the Chicago Wolves owners for a partnership. Move the Panthers to Chicago and set up your AHL farm club in Florida. The Leafs will gladly slip a few million for 5 years to assist you in putting Bill Wirtz and the BlackHawks out of business.

If this works, maybe the Rangers could make a deal with another struggling team and do the same to Jacobs and the Bruins if there is a suitable building in beantown.

 

[Mess]

Ok, Florida Panthers, you want revenue sharing? Here is an offer you can't refuse. Make a deal with the Chicago Wolves owners for a partnership. Move the Panthers to Chicago and set up your AHL farm club in Florida. The Leafs will gladly slip a few million for 5 years to assist you in putting Bill Wirtz and the BlackHawks out of business.

If this works, maybe the Rangers could make a deal with another struggling team and do the same to Jacobs and the Bruins if there is a suitable building in beantown.

I even liked your other idea better ..

Rather then Revenue Sharing for years .. Let the Big Market teams that are suppose to Revenue share swallow up and buy out the weak and struggling teams owners .. Somewhere between 60-80 mil one time should do it ..

They could have a lottery among the Big Market teams to see who gets what team..

Philly absorbs Pittsburgh
NYR absorbs Atlanta
Toronto swallows up Florida
Detroit buys out Nashville
Colorado pays out Karmonos in Carolina
Dallas merges with Anaheim

At least that way the Big Market teams get some return on their Revenue Sharing money with a influx of young talent moving forward ..

And we have a healthier 24 team league ...

Expansion money has been reimbursed so Owners are not out of pocket ..

We all play under the same Hard Cap figure.

Weaker teams remaining Columbus, Washington etc all go into a entry draft lottery to see who gets Crosby and the early picks and

LETS PLAY HOCKEY .!!!!..

 

[norrisnick]

Remember that $300M war chest the league has? Use it to buy out those 4-5 teams. Then have a dispersal draft, rather than giving one team all of the prospects from one of the dissolved teams. The Leafs getting their hands on Luongo, Horton, Weiss, Bouwmeester, Stewart, etc...? Craziness.

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

Good plan. Take the $300 million war chest and have $250 K added by the remaining 24 teams to give 6 owners a $60 million dollar kiss off (the first 6 owners to the finish line)! That would be a great revenue sharing plan!

 

[Mess]

Remember that $300M war chest the league has? Use it to buy out those 4-5 teams. Then have a dispersal draft, rather than giving one team all of the prospects from one of the dissolved teams. The Leafs getting their hands on Luongo, Horton, Weiss, Bouwmeester, Stewart, etc...? Craziness.

Why is it crazy ??

First MLSE are coughing up 80 mil to buyout a team and then the Leafs need those roster players to replace .. Belfour, Leetch, Mogilny, Nieuwendyk, Roberts and they are all gone next year both for age and Hard Cap reasons..

No one wants to give these teams any chance at the new batch of young prospects on the horizon, then why discourage them from buying some on the open market ??

You guys are hard to please ..

 

[Mess]

Good plan. Take the $300 million war chest and have $250 K added by the remaining 24 teams to give 6 owners a $60 million dollar kiss off (the first 6 owners to the finish line)! That would be a great revenue sharing plan!

Now that would be exciting as well .. Racing owners ..

All Owners interested in being bought out .. should line up and lets have a 400M race . first 6 to cross the line get the Franchise reimbursement money..

On your marks ...Get Set ... Go !!!

 

[norrisnick]

Why is it crazy ??

First MLSE are coughing up 80 mil to buyout a team and then the Leafs need those roster players to replace .. Belfour, Leetch, Mogilny, Nieuwendyk, Roberts and they are all gone next year both for age and Hard Cap reasons..

No one wants to give these teams any chance at the new batch of young prospects on the horizon, then why discourage them from buying some on the open market ??

You guys are hard to please ..

Fine, the Leafs can have the Preds and the Wings'll take the Panthers.

 

[norrisnick]

The point is any one team adding all the prospects of a team like Florida, Atlanta, etc... is murder for the 20 teams that won't be gettingj 4-5 blue-chippers at the drop of a hat.

 

[PecaFan]

Could you imagen Bill Wirtz sharing the money he makes? The guy stole from his niece's trust fund for cryin out loud!

http://www.careermisconduct.com/

Oh god, not that bloody piece of trash again.

It's a self published "book" by a failed lawyer with an axe to grind because Wirtz and Co. refused to hire him to make their game programs.

Not a word of it is true. Even the author himself calls it "satire" (to avoid libel, no doubt).

http://www.aoinfo.com/blueline/info.htm

 

[jaws]

Oh god, not that bloody piece of trash again.

It's a self published "book" by a failed lawyer with an axe to grind because Wirtz and Co. refused to hire him to make their game programs.

Not a word of it is true. Even the author himself calls it "satire" (to avoid libel, no doubt).

http://www.aoinfo.com/blueline/info.htm

That's some powerful satire.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=11903
http://www.rcfp.org/news/mag/27-1/new-hockey-f.html

Your article doesn't talk or mention his book, Career Misconduct, once. The article is instead about his satirical "fake program," The Blue Line. And on the program, although,

None other than Sports Illustrated has accurately described The Blue Line as 'a renegade Blackhawks program with a Spy magazine 'tude and a 'frat-boy tone.'" Weinberg doesn't deny it -- his logo, after all, is a helmeted figure with a goofy, gaptoothed grin. To Weinberg, hockey is a vehicle through which he can comment on the whole sporting industry. And, in his view, the sporting industry and the actions of team owners provide insight into the power the haves wield over the have-nots.

fans still think,

"It's pretty truthful about hockey. It's got good inside stuff. And, like everybody else, it hates the owner."

True, he does admit that the book is, "...a 'malicious satire' of Wirtz," it still doesn't make it untrue.

 

[PecaFan]

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=11903
http://www.rcfp.org/news/mag/27-1/new-hockey-f.html

Your article doesn't talk or mention his book, Career Misconduct, once.

No, my article is simply pointing out his background. Which your articles point out as well, he's a vengeful man spewing out hate due to a personal vendetta against the Hawks and Wirtz.

True, he does admit that the book is, "...a 'malicious satire' of Wirtz," it still doesn't make it untrue.

If it was true, he wouldn't have to label it as satire. He'd be calling it an "expose, hard hitting journalism", etc.

 

[me2]

I even liked your other idea better ..

Rather then Revenue Sharing for years .. Let the Big Market teams that are suppose to Revenue share swallow up and buy out the weak and struggling teams owners .. Somewhere between 60-80 mil one time should do it ..

They could have a lottery among the Big Market teams to see who gets what team..

Philly absorbs Pittsburgh
NYR absorbs Atlanta
Toronto swallows up Florida
Detroit buys out Nashville
Colorado pays out Karmonos in Carolina
Dallas merges with Anaheim

At least that way the Big Market teams get some return on their Revenue Sharing money with a influx of young talent moving forward ..

And we have a healthier 24 team league ...

Expansion money has been reimbursed so Owners are not out of pocket ..

We all play under the same Hard Cap figure.

Weaker teams remaining Columbus, Washington etc all go into a entry draft lottery to see who gets Crosby and the early picks and

LETS PLAY HOCKEY .!!!!..

Then you have to get it past the union and Goodenow. Slash 20% of the jobs, destroy the players market value, and have a cap as well. Seems like a lose-lose situation to me.

Even if they were merger, it would help but might not help as much as you think. The lesser teams would make the richer teams keep their undercontract vets as part of their salary cap. No buyouts for Amonte/LeClair/Whitney types etc. They'd have to release great chunks of the newly aquired talent for cap reasons. Then there are players lost through waivers etc.

 

[Hunter74]

I even liked your other idea better ..

Rather then Revenue Sharing for years .. Let the Big Market teams that are suppose to Revenue share swallow up and buy out the weak and struggling teams owners .. Somewhere between 60-80 mil one time should do it ..

They could have a lottery among the Big Market teams to see who gets what team..

Philly absorbs Pittsburgh
NYR absorbs Atlanta
Toronto swallows up Florida
Detroit buys out Nashville
Colorado pays out Karmonos in Carolina
Dallas merges with Anaheim

At least that way the Big Market teams get some return on their Revenue Sharing money with a influx of young talent moving forward ..

And we have a healthier 24 team league ...

Expansion money has been reimbursed so Owners are not out of pocket ..

We all play under the same Hard Cap figure.

Weaker teams remaining Columbus, Washington etc all go into a entry draft lottery to see who gets Crosby and the early picks and

LETS PLAY HOCKEY .!!!!..

Eventually somehting like that might happen with revenue sharing or no revenue sharing. Lets face it the market in NY is always gonna be bigger than the market in Edmonton. Sonner or later the leagues growth is gonna stagnate b/c small market teams are gonna top out on growth before the big market teams do. Then what are the BOG gonna do? Keep a small market team that is holding the NHL combined revenue back not to mention the PA revenue as well or focre it to move to a better market? What happens if the NHL salary cap range grows to 50-60mil in the future but a small market team has capped its revenue out and can only afford 35-45 before they have to get financial help form the richer teams. I doubt these rich teams are gonna want to carry a team around for a fre ride forever.

Just something that I thought about in regards to long term growth of the NHL and wether all the current teams will be able to afford the average in the future.

 

[Mess]

Eventually somehting like that might happen with revenue sharing or no revenue sharing. Lets face it the market in NY is always gonna be bigger than the market in Edmonton. Sonner or later the leagues growth is gonna stagnate b/c small market teams are gonna top out on growth before the big market teams do. Then what are the BOG gonna do? Keep a small market team that is holding the NHL combined revenue back not to mention the PA revenue as well or focre it to move to a better market? What happens if the NHL salary cap range grows to 50-60mil in the future but a small market team has capped its revenue out and can only afford 35-45 before they have to get financial help form the richer teams. I doubt these rich teams are gonna want to carry a team around for a fre ride forever.

Just something that I thought about in regards to long term growth of the NHL and wether all the current teams will be able to afford the average in the future.

You touched on it and it doesn't get enough play .. The hard cap is being set for this market right now for these 30 teams in the current locations ..

However even if total revenue goes up then the Hard Cap figure rises but we all know that we have teams each earning different revenue amounts .. That increase could be contributed to just a few markets .. So while the playing surface is going to start even as it grows small markets will become further away from the big market teams in a gowing NHL .. You can see it happening Big Markets could do many things that generate more revenue ,, Small markets will get tapped out .. The Oilers claim they are tapped out now ..

The only form of true Revenue sharing the NHL may ever have is TV Contracts divided up or common Revenue Sponsors etc .. The NHL should have tried 45 Mil Hard Cap and had it for all 6 years of a CBA so then at least all teams would have known from day 1 where they stood .. While linkage protects Owners in a shrinking market , it punishes some small markets in a growing one ..

I am glad you said this .. It should get more play .. What is equal day 1 of a new CBA will be very unequal by the last day IMO ..

 

[R0CKET]

Its funny, you being a pro-owner guy, thus I assume agree with their cost certainty statements, yet believe sharing playoff revenue, something that is uncertain, is the solution. The NHL actually has this idea, thus favouring both cost certainty, and revenue uncertainty. What happens if all series go 4 games? Unlikely, but neither is it likely that all series will go 7 games, hence the uncertainty of the amount of revenue that will be shared. Also, if the revenue sharing is only to be done in the playoffs, why bother making the playoffs? Spend $60 million so I might get in? Sorry, I might as well stick with my $20-30 million....

If the NHL gets there way, there will never be substancial revenue sharing. Bettman going to T.O for revenue sharing is just a show. The 2nd poster here said it all. Basically saying he was a Leaf fan, thus felt its his team's money, so too bad for the small markets, them's the breaks. Well, that's exactly how Boston, Philly, Detriot, Chicago, Toronto, New York, Avs, Dallas, and St. Louis feel, so don't count on major, NFL like revenue sharing, because these guys are all for themselves, and not for the league. Could you imagen Bill Wirtz sharing the money he makes? The guy stole from his niece's trust fund for cryin out loud!

http://www.careermisconduct.com/

A season is 82 fully scheduled games the playoffs aren't netting the players added salary for every extra game they play right? So I don't see how the players have squat to say bout the issue. They get paid with an expectation to be able to win the Stanley Cup and that assumes going through the playoffs to achieve that. Nobody is or should be paid only to play a regular season. Unless you are asserting that they are paid with the expectation to lose...and still get 6-10 mil per year?

Well I for one am less POd about stealing from a neice as I am the F'ng players stealing 70% off all revenues and then stealing the whole f'ng season cuz they don't wan't to see that changed...ever.

I don't believe in revenue uncertainty but I do want to see cost certainty for player salaries. I don't know what the value of playoff revenues are but they should be shared. I do know that a cap is a needed part of the equation.

And if you and the greedy millionaire PA money grubbers are so outraged & losing so much sleep about possibly not getting enough of the Playoff gravy train then why not just sign up for a linked to revenues deal. Well we know full well that they don't want to agree to any linked deal so the problem really resides here IMO, but if they did find increases in the future and some other cash streams found their way into the NHL then they'd already have a cut of the action. But since its unthinkable for them to be constrained in any way, they would rather lose a season or 2 more.