List All the Possible Revenue that we all know of.

[The Maltais Falcon]

OK, then the players there then have a case. But what about in other cities? I'd wager that most teams do not share owners with the arenas they play in. Here in Atlanta they do, like they do in Philly, but not in most cities.

And CarlRacki is right about the costs associated with real estate that aren't there for ticket sales. Demanding 55-60% of arena revenue rights is not justifiable when the players aren't paying the mortgage or interest on the arena. Same with concessions now that I think about it. They can argue for that percentage of profits, but not of revenues since that ignores the cost of the food and drink being sold and the huge liquor license costs and taxes that have to be maintained.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

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.

Why is it unreasonable ? If the Flyers didn't play there, Wachovia wouldn't have paid as much to put their name on the building.

It all counts as revenue to the team, whether its tickets, concessions, radio/tv money, etc. etc. It all goes into one big pile of money. It all should be comsindered part of that $2.1 Billion in revenue.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

OK, then the players there then have a case. But what about in other cities? I'd wager that most teams do not share owners with the arenas they play in. Here in Atlanta they do, like they do in Philly, but not in most cities.

That's why every team is different, and one formula can't be used for every team. That's why if linkage is ever accepted, the next huge fight will be "what is hockey revenue?" .. and that fight could be just as long and hard.

And CarlRacki is right about the costs associated with real estate that aren't there for ticket sales. Demanding 55-60% of arena revenue rights is not justifiable when the players aren't paying the mortgage or interest on the arena. Same with concessions now that I think about it. They can argue for that percentage of profits, but not of revenues since that ignores the cost of the food and drink being sold and the huge liquor license costs and taxes that have to be maintained.

Everything comes under total revenue. Concessions, which most teams contract out: example, in Philadelphia they use Aramark

I have no idea what Aramark pays but they do the concessions for every even at the Wachovia Center: Perhaps they pay $10 million a year for those rights to Comcast.

That $10 million has to be split up somehow: What % goes to the Flyers, or the 76ers, etc. etc. ???

 

[ArizonaGreenTea]

Idealy it would be any source of revenue the owners have access to and the players can help improve.

Things like:
Hotels
Bars/Restaurants
Merchandise stores
I'd even include malls

Mind you this is only fair if these are owned by the team (obvious, though not so) and won't likely happen, but I think it's only fair that the players get a portion of all the revenue they help generate for the owners, whether directly or indirectly.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

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

Get a clue. There certainly is a cap on what actors make. It's call scale and it is very stringent on what actors can make during the filming of a movie. The big name in the movie is not normally resticted to scale, but they are paid a small percentage of the production cost and normally are required to assume some of the risk in the production for their big salaries (fronting money for production costs, etc). When an actor takes a huge salary (Tom Cruise got $20 million for MI2) it comes out of a huge budget for the film ($125 million) and is insured against the gross ($546 million in ticket sales alone), so the actor is not getting all that much in comparison to revenues. Also consider that a movie being one "game" in the "league" of the thousands of movies made a year and you're little theory falls a part. For every one movie where a star gets an outrageous salary there are others (Oceans 11 and Oceans 12 as example) where the actors work for scale for the sake of the production or other personal reasons. As well, for an actor to demand that top salary (A List) they must have an extensive body of work (10-15 years of working in the industry) and have a proven track record as a draw. As well, you can be dropped from the A List over night and go back to being no body. Trying to use Hollywood or an actor as a comparison is a really bad idea as athletes make a lot more than actors, even the stars, and have no where near the level of risk that actors do.

 

[quat]

Why is it unreasonable ? If the Flyers didn't play there, Wachovia wouldn't have paid as much to put their name on the building.

It all counts as revenue to the team, whether its tickets, concessions, radio/tv money, etc. etc. It all goes into one big pile of money. It all should be comsindered part of that $2.1 Billion in revenue.

I'm curious. Where do you draw the line? You do have a point with this... but one also begins to wonder, why bother putting money up for something where you stand to make less than your partners, while taking all the risk and being the only one who actually invests anything.

 

[vanlady]

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.

Since when does the Wachovia Center host 250 events a year. The last time I checked the Flyers represented 48% of the use of the Center, not the Spectrum.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

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

What about venues that have multi-purpose parking. Take Calgary for example. They have a lot on site that services a race track (horses), a casino and a convention facility which are running 365 days of the year. What about the surrounding community where land owners charge for over-flow parking? What about for city owned parking facilities? What about for mass transit? What about for fans who take "fan" buses and park at restaurants?

This is a much more complex issue than anyone wants to consider and they like to think of it as being very cut and dry. This is why players are so confused about it and they scream that the owners are hiding money. They think that any revenues generated by the facility where they play they should get a cut of it. The fact of the matter is that these facilities are multi-use and are not always owned by the team and there are other risk takers involved. Once the players start assuming more risks (buy the building for instance) then they can ask for more and more of the cut. I think players should get a cut of the gate, TV, radio, mechandising and appearance revenues.

 

[vanlady]

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

That's funny owners do get a cut. Any player that does an endorsement in there uniform the owner gets a cut for the the player wearing the right clothes, I wish money was that easy

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Since when does the Wachovia Center host 250 events a year. The last time I checked the Flyers represented 48% of the use of the Center, not the Spectrum.

My numbers were a pure guess, but there is no way that the Flyers are in 48% of the events held there. I know that a year or two ago the Wachovia center hosted more events thatn any building in the US.

EDIT: Found this link
http://www.comcast-spectacor.com/arenainfo/wachovia_center.asp
Over 250 events per year.

 

[quat]

What about venues that have multi-purpose parking. Take Calgary for example. They have a lot on site that services a race track (horses), a casino and a convention facility which are running 365 days of the year. What about the surrounding community where land owners charge for over-flow parking? What about for city owned parking facilities? What about for mass transit? What about for fans who take "fan" buses and park at restaurants?

This is a much more complex issue than anyone wants to consider and they like to think of it as being very cut and dry. This is why players are so confused about it and they scream that the owners are hiding money. They think that any revenues generated by the facility where they play they should get a cut of it. The fact of the matter is that these facilities are multi-use and are not always owned by the team and there are other risk takers involved. Once the players start assuming more risks (buy the building for instance) then they can ask for more and more of the cut. I think players should get a cut of the gate, TV, radio, mechandising and appearance revenues.

And I think that anyone that volunteered to help coach or organize or run games that helped an NHL player get to the league should get a cut of his paycheck... it's only fair after all.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

What about venues that have multi-purpose parking. Take Calgary for example. They have a lot on site that services a race track (horses), a casino and a convention facility which are running 365 days of the year. What about the surrounding community where land owners charge for over-flow parking? What about for city owned parking facilities? What about for mass transit? What about for fans who take "fan" buses and park at restaurants?

This is a much more complex issue than anyone wants to consider and they like to think of it as being very cut and dry. This is why players are so confused about it and they scream that the owners are hiding money. They think that any revenues generated by the facility where they play they should get a cut of it. The fact of the matter is that these facilities are multi-use and are not always owned by the team and there are other risk takers involved. Once the players start assuming more risks (buy the building for instance) then they can ask for more and more of the cut. I think players should get a cut of the gate, TV, radio, mechandising and appearance revenues.

I said that every building is different, and that's what makes it so difficult to count all revenues. This is the heart of the matter. The fight to determine what is and isn't hockey revenue if a cap is put in place will be something that takes weeks to fight about.

Venues that have multi-purpose parking, have to come up with a percentage. How many are going to Flames games, etc. ?

 

[quat]

That's funny owners do get a cut. Any player that does an endorsement in there uniform the owner gets a cut for the the player wearing the right clothes, I wish money was that easy

Yup... just riding those players to the money tree. Giddiyup !!

 

[CarlRacki]

Since when does the Wachovia Center host 250 events a year. The last time I checked the Flyers represented 48% of the use of the Center, not the Spectrum.

When was the last time you checked?
According to the Wachovia Center website, it does indeed host more than 250 events a year. With pre-season and a long playoff run, the Flyers would only account for about 20 percent.

http://www.comcast-spectacor.com/arenainfo/wachovia_center.asp

 

[vanlady]

My numbers were a pure guess, but there is no way that the Flyers are in 48% of the events held there. I know that a year or two ago the Wachovia center hosted more events thatn any building in the US.

EDIT: Found this link
http://www.comcast-spectacor.com/arenainfo/wachovia_center.asp
Over 250 events per year.

If you look they are mixing the Spectrum and Center. If you actually look for events strictly at the Center the Flyers represent 48% the 76's represent 48% and concerts make up pretty much the rest.

 

[quat]

I said that every building is different, and that's what makes it so difficult to count all revenues. This is the heart of the matter. The fight to determine what is and isn't hockey revenue if a cap is put in place will be something that takes weeks to fight about.

Venues that have multi-purpose parking, have to come up with a percentage. How many are going to Flames games, etc. ?

Welll how about being reasonable instead greedy? Seems reasonable to me. heh heh heh.

Honestly, you sound like a goverment tax man.

 

[vanlady]

Welll how about being reasonable instead greedy? Seems reasonable to me. heh heh heh.

Honestly, you sound like a goverment tax man.

Welcome to the new NHL, run by accountants.

 

[CarlRacki]

That's funny owners do get a cut. Any player that does an endorsement in there uniform the owner gets a cut for the the player wearing the right clothes, I wish money was that easy

The owner gets a cut because the owner owns the sweater. Mike Modano, Bill Guerin, et al, are welcome to do their endorsements in something other than their sweater and keep 100 percent.

Those silly trademark laws keep getting in the way of the players making money.

 

[CarlRacki]

Welcome to the new NHL, run by accountants.

And how's that different than the old NHL? Is the concept of professional sport as business new to the game?

 

[CarlRacki]

If you look they are mixing the Spectrum and Center. If you actually look for events strictly at the Center the Flyers represent 48% the 76's represent 48% and concerts make up pretty much the rest.

No, they're not. Read the website. It says the Wachovia Center hosts more than 250 events per year and the two facilities combined host more than 400.

Wachovia Center:
http://www.comcast-spectacor.com/arenainfo/wachovia_center.asp

Combined:
http://www.comcast-spectacor.com/siteInfo/landingPage_events.asp

 

[Brewleaguer]

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?

I just want to add to the TV contracts- pay per-season view like NHL Center Ice $140US

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Welll how about being reasonable instead greedy? Seems reasonable to me. heh heh heh.

Honestly, you sound like a goverment tax man.

Unfortunately if payrolls are going to be tied to revenues, every revenue will need to be counted to the last dime.

 

[vanlady]

No, they're not. Read the website. It says the Wachovia Center hosts more than 250 events per year and the two facilities combined host more than 400.

Wachovia Center:
http://www.comcast-spectacor.com/arenainfo/wachovia_center.asp

Combined:
http://www.comcast-spectacor.com/siteInfo/landingPage_events.asp

I suggest you dig like I have, last year I tracked the usage of Wachova Center because Comcast to me is one of the glaring reasons why tracking revenue becomes impossible. In tracking the use of Wachovia Center, on average there were only 1-2 events per month during the basketball and hockey season and only 4-8 events in non hockey months and that was if they were lucky. Some of those events they include are companies booking suites for lunches. Check the current calendar and prove me wrong. There are currently on 3 events in Febuary and March that are not basketball and hockey.

http://www.comcast-spectacor.com/events/calendar_listView.asp?mm=3/6/2005&iEvtType=-1

 

[vanlady]

Listen I live in Philadelphia and you are wrong.

Unless Comcast is not listing all events at the Center on the calendar, then you could be right, however I tracked all the events listed on the calendar for a year and what is currently listed on the calendar follows last years trend as well. Do they list all events on the calendar? Oh I used to travel to Philadelpia 3 times a month for a year, I've been to both the Spectrum and Center.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I suggest you dig like I have, last year I tracked the usage of Wachova Center because Comcast to me is one of the glaring reasons why tracking revenue becomes impossible. In tracking the use of Wachovia Center, on average there were only 1-2 events per month during the basketball and hockey season and only 4-8 events in non hockey months and that was if they were lucky. Some of those events they include are companies booking suites for lunches. Check the current calendar and prove me wrong. There are currently on 3 events in Febuary and March that are not basketball and hockey.

http://www.comcast-spectacor.com/events/calendar_listView.asp?mm=3/6/2005&iEvtType=-1

Take a look at January, 2005. 18 non-76ers or Flyers events.
December 2004, 13 non 76ers or Flyers events. (and I didn't count Phantoms games that had been moved over)

Look back a few months. Not all months are equal.