Meeting Day Thread 6/2

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,913
11,862
Leafs Home Board
JWI19 said:
why should they care? Remember the owners are getting 46% of the revenue. Whats better, 46% of 2 billion or 46% of 3 billion?
That is your linkage problem ..

As revenues drop the players lose more money in contracts as the Hard Cap shrinks, as the revenue stream rises the owners gain more proportionately to the players return ..
 

WC Handy*

Guest
King_Brown said:
They cant use fictional revenues to determine a cap, they will use that $2.1 Billion or a little less.

I don't think that's true. The players and owners both are well aware that if they start with a percentage of $2.1B that the cap is going to drop considerably. If they don't want that (and maybe they do, who knows), then they'll come to an agreement on a value that's closer to what they expect revenues to be in the upcoming year.
 

Motown Beatdown

Need a slump buster
Mar 5, 2002
8,572
0
Indianapolis
Visit site
The Messenger said:
That is your linkage problem ..

As revenues drop the players lose more money in contracts as the Hard Cap shrinks, as the revenue stream rises the owners gain more proportionately to the players return ..


Yeah it's a problem if revenues drop and if they do the everyone should make less money. But if they raise, they could be making more than the 42.5 million hard cap w/o linkage they turned down. It's a gamble for the players, but if they believe they can help expand this game and it's popularity then it could pay off.
 

Drury_Sakic

Registered User
Jul 25, 2003
4,917
795
www.avalanchedb.com
I still think that giving out % based contracts works the best...

Take all current contracts.. divide them by the hard cap value....

so say Sakic makes 8 million and there is a 37.5 million cap.. 8/37.5= 21.33%... So Sakic is promised 21.33% of whatever the cap is over say 3 years.... each team has 100% cap to give away... players get contracts based on % rather than cash values..... So based off of Sakics number, he could make 8 million off of a 37.5 cap, 10.66 million off o fa 50 million cap, 7.25 million off of a 34 million cap....

That solves all problems of teams having to fit under a cap, players losing out if revenues take a huges spike.... Players do risk a bit if the cap were to drop, but I have a hard time not seeing the revenue stream getting any smaller than it will next year, heck, I would be shocked if its not in the 42-45 million cap range by 2-3 years from now..
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
The Messenger said:
That is your linkage problem ..

As revenues drop the players lose more money in contracts as the Hard Cap shrinks, as the revenue stream rises the owners gain more proportionately to the players return ..

Must be more of that Spinmaster TM math? Players get 54% of revenues at $2 billion dollars. Owners get 46% of revenues at $2 billion. Players get 54% of revenues at $3 billion dollars. Owners get 46% of revenues at $3 billion. The owners gain more proportionately than the players? Explain that one. Next thing you're going to tell me that even though my sister is 10 years older than me as I age I am actually closing the gap in our age difference!

:shakehead
 

FLYLine27*

BUCH
Nov 9, 2004
42,410
14
NY
King_Brown said:
They prolly started at like 9 or 10 no concrete info.

The revenues could go up to 3 billion, but it will take a lot of time, a tv contract that pays money, and the partnership.

I thought I heard on the radio talks started late today (1230-1) because they were attending John D'Amico funeral. I wasnt really paying attention so im not 100% on this.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
The Iconoclast said:
Must be more of that Spinmaster TM math? Players get 54% of revenues at $2 billion dollars. Owners get 46% of revenues at $2 billion. Players get 54% of revenues at $3 billion dollars. Owners get 46% of revenues at $3 billion. The owners gain more proportionately than the players? Explain that one. Next thing you're going to tell me that even though my sister is 10 years older than me as I age I am actually closing the gap in our age difference!

:shakehead

He is assuming that non-player costs will increase at a slower rate than revenues. He may be right, but there is no way to tell for sure.
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
WC Handy said:
He is assuming that non-player costs will increase at a slower rate than revenues. He may be right, but there is no way to tell for sure.

And god knows that player costs are the only costs that the owners take a hit on while running a hockey team! The bottom line is that the players still get 54% of revenues, at any level, dedicated to their costs, and the owners get 46% of revenues to cover everything else associated with the game. The owners end is covering all the other costs that are likely to rise and have the risk associated with it as well.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
WC Handy said:
He is assuming that non-player costs will increase at a slower rate than revenues. He may be right, but there is no way to tell for sure.

Since the owners have offered profit sharing to cover that possibility, this would be a non-issue if the PA had the intelligence to push for an inclusion of that offer.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,913
11,862
Leafs Home Board
WC Handy said:
He is assuming that non-player costs will increase at a slower rate than revenues. He may be right, but there is no way to tell for sure.
Thanks for helping Icky out with that ..

It is hard to prove either way and depends directly on what has caused the increase in revenue and how non-player costs are effected ..

If the NHL lands a big TV contract for $200 mil .. You have virtually Zero effect on non-player costs perhaps.

What if the league unilaterally added $1 to the price of every game ticket in all 30 NHL centre's

Or it simply could be players like Crosby and Ovechkin becoming NHL stars and attendance figures increase across the league .

This doesn't effect your non-player costs or maybe marginally perhaps in say advertising costs etc .. However your lease agreement doesn't change,your overhead cost (light, heat, power, etc), your coach and GM still receive the same money regardless of total league revenue.

So its not really a reach to believe that those non-player costs will not increase equally for each dollar of revenue increase ..
 

WC Handy*

Guest
The Messenger said:
Thanks for helping Icky out with that ..

It is hard to prove either way and depends directly on what has caused the increase in revenue and how non-player costs are effected ..

If the NHL lands a big TV contract for $200 mil .. You have virtually Zero effect on non-player costs perhaps.

What if the league unilaterally added $1 to the price of every game ticket in all 30 NHL centre's

Or it simply could be players like Crosby and Ovechkin becoming NHL stars and attendance figures increase across the league .

This doesn't effect your non-player costs or maybe marginally perhaps in say advertising costs etc .. However your lease agreement doesn't change,your overhead cost (light, heat, power, etc), your coach and GM still receive the same money regardless of total league revenue.

So its not really a reach to believe that those non-player costs will not increase equally for each dollar of revenue increase ..

What if the league suddenly gets $0 for their TV rights?

What if the league suddenly has to charge $1 less for tickets because less people are coming to the games?

What if the league suddenly loses Anheuser-Busch as a big time sponsor?
 

Lanny MacDonald*

Guest
The Messenger said:
Thanks for helping Icky out with that ..

It is hard to prove either way and depends directly on what has caused the increase in revenue and how non player costs are effected ..

If the NHL lands a big TV contract for 200 mil .. You have virtually Zero effect on non-player costs perhaps ..

What if the the league unilaterally added $1 to the price of every game ticket in all 30 NHL centre's

Or it simply could be players like Crosby and Ovechkin becoming NHL stars and attendance figures increase accros the league .

This doesn't effect your non-player costs or maybe marginally perhaps in say advertising costs etc .. However your lease agreement doesn't change,your overhead cost (light, heat, power, etc), your coach and GM still receive the same money regardless of total league revenue.

So its not really a reach to believe that those non-player costs will not increase equally for each dollar of revenue increase ..

Or what if...

... the NHL has to increase marketing efforts and the costs there rise? A guaranteed certainty.

... the NHL clubs have to reduce ticket prices to attract the fans back? A guaranteed certainty.

... the NHL clubs have to change the way they conduct business and shift their focus to greater scouting and player developemnt efforts? A guaranteed certainty.

What if, what if, what if. Of course the players assume very little risk. They get their guaranteed 54% of revenues, which they have no major costs to worry about other than paying their agents (no change there). The NHL assumes the risks and the changes in the game and all costs associated with the changes in the game come out of the their 46%. Hey, if the players were so certain that there was more money in the future, they would have signed on for the 50/50 profit sharing scheme. They didn't, their loss. This was explained ad naseum when the whole profit sharing proposal was on the table and how it would equate to easy money for the players, but it was just lost on some, including the SpinMaster TM. Nice to see you finally coming around on the issue.
 

Gary

Registered User
BobMckenzie said:
Smart man. I can't count the number of times I've seen a thread take on a life of its own only to find out later, oops, whatever was in the thread isn't happening after all. I can't say with authority there won't be a dispersal draft, but I will say I don't believe it's been the subject of much, if any, negotiation, which runs contrary to many of my fellow media members. We'll see, I guess.

Edit: Wow, do I get anything, a prize or something, for my 100th post. Take this in the manner it's meant, but I gotta get a life. You too. :D

Hey Bob, 2 simple yes or no questions for you if you could oblidge me. If the rookie cap is truly going to be $500,000 won't Crosby be signing with a Euro-team for $1.5 million or so? Has Crosby or his agent ever mentioned the "E" word as a possiblity?
 

oildrop

Registered User
Mar 3, 2002
1,486
0
Visit site
Gary said:
Hey Bob, 2 simple yes or no questions for you if you could oblidge me. If the rookie cap is truly going to be $500,000 won't Crosby be signing with a Euro-team for $1.5 million or so? Has Crosby or his agent ever mentioned the "E" word as a possiblity?

I doubt Crosby would go overseas for more money and pass up a chance at the NHL. The NHL has been his focus since he was 15 or even earlier perhaps. He's not going to pass up on the opportunity to play in the best league in the world.
 

Gary

Registered User
oildrop said:
I doubt Crosby would go overseas for more money and pass up a chance at the NHL. The NHL has been his focus since he was 15 or even earlier perhaps. He's not going to pass up on the opportunity to play in the best league in the world.

True but IF the reports or rookie salaries are true, he could make 3 or 4 times that amount overseas for 4 years until no NHL team has him under contract and then sign with the *ack* Montreal Canadiens after that could'nt he?
 

mackdogs*

Guest
oildrop said:
I doubt Crosby would go overseas for more money and pass up a chance at the NHL. The NHL has been his focus since he was 15 or even earlier perhaps. He's not going to pass up on the opportunity to play in the best league in the world.
His sponsors probably wouldn't like him going to play in Europe either. Crosby will play in the NHL, have no doubt. Even if the rookie cap is 500k (which is news to me) he's probably smart enough to realize he can make up for it after he sheds his 'rookie' status.
 

Boltsfan2029

Registered User
Jul 8, 2002
6,264
0
In deleted threads
The Messenger said:
However your lease agreement doesn't change,your overhead cost (light, heat, power, etc),

Ack, you clearly don't pay your own bills if you think costs such as electricity don't change!

What about payroll for the front office staff, ticket takers, ushers and their benefits? Health insurance not only goes up, it skyrockets from year to year. Those employees will probably be up for pay raises. Don't forget the fees charged by advertising agencies, security services, printing companies, office supplies, travel costs, uniforms, building maintenance, etc., etc., etc.....
 

Brodeur

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
25,864
15,281
San Diego
Gary said:
True but IF the reports or rookie salaries are true, he could make 3 or 4 times that amount overseas for 4 years until no NHL team has him under contract and then sign with the *ack* Montreal Canadiens after that could'nt he?

While that is a possibility (Brian Rafalski was an undrafted North American free agent whereas European players needed to be drafted into the NHL), I'm doubting Crosby passes up the chance to be possibly THE GUY that the NHL builds around now, to make a couple more million playing in a European league. If Crosby's top priority was about money, he would have at least considered that WHA offer.

As the others have said, he'd be losing a lot in existing and potential endorsements by going abroad anyways.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,913
11,862
Leafs Home Board
WC Handy said:
What if the league suddenly gets $0 for their TV rights?

What if the league suddenly has to charge $1 less for tickets because less people are coming to the games?

What if the league suddenly loses Anheuser-Busch as a big time sponsor?
How does that increase revenue ??

You are talking about lost or declining revenue ??

I accept the market shrinking by at a fixed linkage rate then both sides pay for the loss of a sponsor ....

I am taking about as Revenue increases if fixed non-player cost remain somewhat stationary then the NHL Owners gain more then the players do at a fixed rate linkage as the market expands .. The owners are basing their offer of 54% to cover these fixed costs .. Once they are covered like the examples I gave in previous post then every dollar raised goes to owners profit ..

I am suggesting a floating scale linkage based on Revenue streams ..

ie.
53% to NHLPA at 1.5 Bil total Revenue
54% to NHLPA from 1.5-2.0 bil
55% to NHLPA from 2.0-2.5 bil
56% to NHLPA from 2.5-3.0 bil
etc ..

You need to find the break-even Revenue point for non-player cost and then divide up the pie differently once those costs are convered ..

So I think we are talking about 2 different things ..

The NFL players get a bigger percent based on a bigger total Revenue market ..

If the NHL Revenue market doubled from 2.0 to 4.0 bil .. The NHL players would still only get 54% now ..

The only thing that the NHL offered was profit sharing to the players .. but unsigned UFA do not benefit from that .. The NHLPA wants the the HARD CAP to increase so he doesn't sit as a Cap casulty.

That same does for Revenue sharing model as Total League Revenue increase as should the amount of Revenue sharing etc ..

The reason being the healthier the system the more the owners should be able to spend on the entertainment value to the fans ..
 
Last edited:

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,691
37,485
I just got home...anyone know what time the meeting started?
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,913
11,862
Leafs Home Board
Boltsfan2029 said:
Ack, you clearly don't pay your own bills if you think costs such as electricity don't change!

What about payroll for the front office staff, ticket takers, ushers and their benefits? Health insurance not only goes up, it skyrockets from year to year. Those employees will probably be up for pay raises. Don't forget the fees charged by advertising agencies, security services, printing companies, office supplies, travel costs, uniforms, building maintenance, etc., etc., etc.....
Your way off topic ..

Heat,light,power does not change in conjunction to more fans in the building if they paid a dollar extra per ticket .. You print you tickets once a year and it doesn't cost more to print $25 or $26 on it ?? But that $1 for every ticket in every arena increases Total league revunue yet the 54% linkage remains the same .. and the 54% already covers printing cost as that is what the NHL figured they could pay based on non-player costs ..

The example I gave was if the NHL landed a Big 200 mil TV deal and that gets split like the NFL one does then Power doesn't go up proportunatly unless you consider camera's plugged in raise electricity greatly as a result.

I am not saying some costs do not go up ..

Do you believe stationary cost for running a $2.1 bil industry changes greatly to go up to 2.5 bil ?? by something like the TV deal ..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->