List All the Possible Revenue that we all know of.

[Biggest Canuck Fan]

I think because it is such an important thing, that we should all list revenue from what we know... Then we can list what classifies as player eligible revenue.

This is all NHL related revenue:
Tickets
Luxury suites
Sky Boxes (There is a difference)
Merchandise
Memorabilia
Concessions
Local TV Contracts
National TV Contracts (TSN, CBC, ESPN)

Anymore that anyone else can think of?

Click to read more...

 

[vanlady]

I think because it is such an important thing, that we should all list revenue from what we know... Then we can list what classifies as player eligible revenue.

This is all NHL related revenue:
Tickets
Luxury suites
Sky Boxes (There is a difference)
Merchandise
Memorabilia
Concessions
Local TV Contracts
National TV Contracts (TSN, CBC, ESPN)

Anymore that anyone else can think of?

Arena Naming rights
Corporate sponsorship
Advertising
Lottery
Parking
Personal appearances

 

[Icey]

Local Radio

 

[The Maltais Falcon]

I'm not certain players should be entitled to arena naming revenues. Maybe if the arena is owned by the team. But then only maybe. If it were, it should only be in proportion to the revenues the team brings in as a fraction of the total that the arena brings in. Same with parking.

 

[Icey]

Why shouldn't they? Afterall the owners get the revenue from parking and naming rights, so why shouldn't the players?

This is the core of the problem with the lockout. Its not a salary cap, but rather what is a revenue.

 

[Hoek]

Little hockey pixies that shower tons of money on the owners that they consistently deny exist, allowing them to claim they are actually losing money on their ventures.

 

[SuperUnknown]

Why shouldn't they? Afterall the owners get the revenue from parking and naming rights, so why shouldn't the players?

This is the core of the problem with the lockout. Its not a salary cap, but rather what is a revenue.

I think you have to look at just how related to the hockey business every revenue source is. You have to ask yourself those questions:

Could it be independantly owned? If it could, then only the revenues that would have gone to the hockey club would it be independantly owned can be counted in. For example, if you don't own your arena, when negociating the lease, will you ask for concession revenues? Will you ask for parking revenues? What would be the price for the luxury boxes just for hockey? Etc.

Remember that the losses figure used in the negociations is loss before amortization and interests. If you want to include most rink revenues, then the negociations must include amortization and interests, charges that are mostly arena related (as the cost of building the arena and the interests running on the financing done to cover the cost).

Anyway... that's something competent accounting firms should be able to achieve with justification.

 

[futurcorerock]

Video Games

 

[creative giant*]

Hockey players are not deserving of a cut of beer/concession sales in an arena. They may think they are, but they're not. They always like to compare themselves to movie stars because they are entertainers but I'm sure that when an actor has a clause in his contract stating that he gets a percentage of the gross sales that it doesn't include the popcorn and pop sales in a movie theatre.

What makes hockey players so different? They should get a percentage of all HOCKEY RELATED REVENUE. That is ticket sales/merchandise and tv revenue etc.. Concession/Parking/Naming of the arena and the such go to the owners of the building. If the owner of the building happens to be the same as the owner of the team so be it. But the players are not entitled to it. And they are fools if they think they deserve it.

 

[Lexicon Devil]

^- Stupid Post

 

[Phanuthier*]

OT: I think by now its pretty clear that the new CBA will indeed have a cap. What the players should now be fighting for is their fair shair of the pie for the cap.

 

[quat]

I think that players should get a big cut from the doctors and surgeons that see to their injuries as well, because without the players, these people wouldn't be making the kind of money they are. Same with car sales. Everytime a hockey player buys a car, he should get a percentage of that sale as well, because he is a known entity, a celebrity, and is now constantly advertising his vehicle free of charge. Beer sales increase in homes around Canada during game nights... chips too, so it can be accurately reasoned that it is the game (ie, the players, not the sport itself), that propels the sales... therefore... yup, the NHLPA deserves a healthy cut of that revenue stream.

Let's see... Taxis, airplane flights for out of town fans... revenue revenue


Seems to me, with all this commerce influenced by the players, they are obviously extremely underpaid.

 

[ArtG]

I think that players should get a big cut from the doctors and surgeons that see to their injuries as well, because without the players, these people wouldn't be making the kind of money they are. Same with car sales. Everytime a hockey player buys a car, he should get a percentage of that sale as well, because he is a known entity, a celebrity, and is now constantly advertising his vehicle free of charge. Beer sales increase in homes around Canada during game nights... chips too, so it can be accurately reasoned that it is the game (ie, the players, not the sport itself), that propels the sales... therefore... yup, the NHLPA deserves a healthy cut of that revenue stream.

Let's see... Taxis, airplane flights for out of town fans... revenue revenue


Seems to me, with all this commerce influenced by the players, they are obviously extremely underpaid.

love it!

 

[ScottyBowman]

Hockey players are not deserving of a cut of beer/concession sales in an arena. They may think they are, but they're not. They always like to compare themselves to movie stars because they are entertainers but I'm sure that when an actor has a clause in his contract stating that he gets a percentage of the gross sales that it doesn't include the popcorn and pop sales in a movie theatre.

What makes hockey players so different? They should get a percentage of all HOCKEY RELATED REVENUE. That is ticket sales/merchandise and tv revenue etc.. Concession/Parking/Naming of the arena and the such go to the owners of the building. If the owner of the building happens to be the same as the owner of the team so be it. But the players are not entitled to it. And they are fools if they think they deserve it.

You do realize that the movie companies get 90% of the ticket sales revenues, right? I'm sure the players are happy to oblige, Einstein.

 

[Pavel]

Video Games

Players get a cut of that too.

 

[CarlRacki]

You do realize that the movie companies get 90% of the ticket sales revenues, right? I'm sure the players are happy to oblige, Einstein.

The players aren't analagous to the movie companies. They're analagous to the actors.

 

[ScottyBowman]

The players aren't analagous to the movie companies. They're analagous to the actors.

Even better. Their is no movie salary cap nor is their any linkage with revenue.

 

[CarlRacki]

Even better. Their is no movie salary cap nor is their any linkage with revenue.

And movie companies aren't in a league.

league = An association of states, organizations, or individuals for common action; an alliance.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I'm not certain players should be entitled to arena naming revenues. Maybe if the arena is owned by the team. But then only maybe. If it were, it should only be in proportion to the revenues the team brings in as a fraction of the total that the arena brings in. Same with parking.

Yes, they should get a share. now they don't get the whole thing, it's the percentage that needs to be determined, which would be different in every building:

Example, number purely hypothetical:

Wachovia Center in Philadelphia: $5 million per year for the name:
Average number of events: 250
Average number of Flyers games:50

IMO the Flyers should get a minimum of 20% of that revenue assigned to them: $1 million

Skyreach Center in Edmonton: $2 million per year
Average number of events: 90
Average number of Oilers games: 45

IMO the Oilers should get 50% or more of that revenue assigned to them: $1 million

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

Also parking for all games should absolutely count. No game, nobody is coming there to park in the lots.

 

[CarlRacki]

Yes, they should get a share. now they don't get the whole thing, it's the percentage that needs to be determined, which would be different in every building:

Example, number purely hypothetical:

Wachovia Center in Philadelphia: $5 million per year for the name:
Average number of events: 250
Average number of Flyers games:50

IMO the Flyers should get a minimum of 20% of that revenue assigned to them: $1 million

Skyreach Center in Edmonton: $2 million per year
Average number of events: 90
Average number of Oilers games: 45

IMO the Oilers should get 50% or more of that revenue assigned to them: $1 million

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

Also parking for all games should absolutely count. No game, nobody is coming there to park in the lots.

Just so we're clear, arer you suggesting that the Flyers' players receive $1 million from the Wachovia Center's naming rights? What about the people who invested the capital needed to get the facility built? What about the team ownership who negotiated the deal?
I hope I'm misreading you on this, but if not this is yet another pro-PA post that seems to work under the theory that the owners deserve no profit from their massive investment in the league. That's a good way to kill a business.
I can see an argument that the players deserve a small cut of that $1 million, but certainly nothing approaching the full $1 million.

 

[mytor4*]

Biggest Canuck Fan
Thru the good and the bad



Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Kamloops, BC, Can.
Posts: 4,528
List All the Possible Revenue that we all know of.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think because it is such an important thing, that we should all list revenue from what we know... Then we can list what classifies as player eligible revenue.

This is all NHL related revenue:
Tickets
Luxury suites
Sky Boxes (There is a difference)
Merchandise
Memorabilia
Concessions
Local TV Contracts
National TV Contracts (TSN, CBC, ESPN)

Anymore that anyone else can think of?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------if that the case than the owners should get a cut of any endorsement that players are payed. no mattered what the endorsement is for the only reason the player is getting one is because his name is attached to the game. so if he get paid for doing a toothbrush commerical or anything than what is good for the players is good for the owners and the players should give there % to the owners

 

[The Maltais Falcon]

Who owns the Wachovia Center? Is it Ed Snider? If so, then the Flyer players could make an argument that they deserve a cut. If not, then how can you argue they deserve a penny? Same thing with parking.

If I own an arena or a parking lot that is independent of the team that rents that arena, there's no way in hell I'm going to give them a cut of any revenues I make on my business just because they happen to rent from me, just like if I were a landlord I wouldn't give a tenant a cut of my profits if I rent out or sell another house that I happen to own (or even sell the house they may have been living in.)

Glen Healy gets bashed a lot but he did raise one interesting point last week on TSN. Rather than trying to unravel all these disparate revenue sources, the players should just demand a higher percentage of easily traceable revenue streams like ticket sales, TV money, and concessions.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Just so we're clear, arer you suggesting that the Flyers' players receive $1 million from the Wachovia Center's naming rights? What about the people who invested the capital needed to get the facility built? What about the team ownership who negotiated the deal?
I hope I'm misreading you on this, but if not this is yet another pro-PA post that seems to work under the theory that the owners deserve no profit from their massive investment in the league. That's a good way to kill a business.
I can see an argument that the players deserve a small cut of that $1 million, but certainly nothing approaching the full $1 million.

No, not saying that the players get $1 million, but that of the $5 million total, $1 million of it gets listed under revenues for the Philadelphia Flyers

Example using Philadelphia

$5 million total should be listed as something like this IMO:

$1.5 million - Flyers
$1.5 million - 76ers
$2.0 million to be split among the various other entities: concerts, kid shows, lacrosse, etc. etc.

Then of that $1.5 million if the players end up with what ever is negotaited: 55-60%.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Who owns the Wachovia Center? Is it Ed Snider? If so, then the Flyer players could make an argument that they deserve a cut. If not, then how can you argue they deserve a penny? Same thing with parking.

Yes, Comcast/Ed Snider own the Wachovia Center.

 

[CarlRacki]

Then of that $1.5 million if the players end up with what ever is negotaited: 55-60%.

I cqn understand a small cut, but not 55-60 percent. The fact remains the players took no risk building the facility, did nothing to make it happen and expended no effort acquiring the sponsorship. Giving them a large cut of the benefits of such a deal for doing nothing to make it happen seems unreasonable.