Online archived interviews by Trevor Linden, Helene Elliot, Brian Burke & Russ Conway

[Jazz]

TREVOR LINDEN - NHLPA PRESIDENT

• Go to http://www.cknw.com/audiovault/audiovault.cfm
  
• Select "WED JAN 5" under date: and "9pm" under hour and hit "GO".
  Windows Media player will open up.
• Adjust the scroll on the bottom to "17:30".

HELENE ELLIOT - LA TIMES - critical of both sides, and the effect to the game in the US

• Go to http://www.cknw.com/audiovault/audiovault.cfm
  
• Select "THU JAN 6" under date: and "9pm" under hour and hit "GO".
  Windows Media player will open up.
• Adjust the scroll on the bottom to "35:30".

BRIAN BURKE - former NHL GM

• Go to http://www.cknw.com/audiovault/audiovault.cfm
  
• Select "THU JAN 6" under date: and "10pm" under hour and hit "GO".
  Windows Media player will open up.
• Adjust the scroll on the bottom to "17:35".

RUSS CONWAY - EAGLE TRIBUNE (New England) EDITOR - talks about his CBA proposal which is outlined here: http://www.eagletribune.com/features/nhl-proposal.htm

• Go to http://www.cknw.com/audiovault/audiovault.cfm
  
• Select "TUE JAN 11" under date: and "11pm" under hour and hit "GO".
  Windows Media player will open up.
• Adjust the scroll on the bottom to "14:25".

Click to read more...

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

I love how Linden keeps talking about how the league needs to revenue share. The first caller asks him if he would accept a cap if the league did a lot of revenue sharing like the NFL. Linden, of course, went around it and said they shouldn't have to.

NHL: "We want a cap"
NHLPA: "We don't believe your numbers"
NHL "What if you knew our numbers 100%? Would you take the Cap?"
NHLPA "NO!!"

NHL: "We want a cap"
NHLPA: "You won't even revenue share so no"
NHL: "If we revenue shared to your desire, would you take a cap"
NHLPA: "No!!"

 

[Wetcoaster]

I love how Linden keeps talking about how the league needs to revenue share. The first caller asks him if he would accept a cap if the league did a lot of revenue sharing like the NFL. Linden, of course, went around it and said they shouldn't have to.

NHL: "We want a cap"
NHLPA: "We don't believe your numbers"
NHL "What if you knew our numbers 100%? Would you take the Cap?"
NHLPA "NO!!"

NHL: "We want a cap"
NHLPA: "You won't even revenue share so no"
NHL: "If we revenue shared to your desire, would you take a cap"
NHLPA: "No!!"

Actually the NHLPA has stated if the NHL is prepared to share revenues at the level of the NFL then the players would be prepared to look at a salary cap. They have stated this on several ocassions the latest being:

"If Bettman wants to revenue share 70 percent of all their revenues we can look at different mechanisms, but they have made pretty plain to us that they have only the most nominal, nominal notions of revenue sharing. We're the ones who are trying to push the envelope and get more revenue sharing and we are willing to take taxes on player payroll to try to create pools for revenue sharing. I think it's important." Ted Saskin - November 18, 2004 on BaD Radio Dallas/Fort Worth.

Currently the NHL shares revenues at about 9% and the NFL at about 70%. Problem is Bettman cannot go down the revenue share road because it would pit owner against owner and likely cost him his job. As has been noted Bettman's support for the lockout is about a mile wide and an inch deep. It has been speculated that the real reason for cancelling the league meeting the other day was because there were going to be some hard questions from some of the high revenue owners.

A report on the NHL by by investment banker Moag & Company this past summer summed up the league's stand on revenue sharing this way:

"There is currently no plan emanating from the Commissioner’s office to tie a salary cap to revenue sharing. Previously, the players’ union has said that it would only consider limiting salaries in the context of significant revenue sharing. That said, the league has suggested in the past that revenue sharing does not require NHLPA approval. If nothing else, this rhetoric suggests that the owners have been unable to agree even amongst themselves as it relates to revenue sharing."

A consultant who works for the NHL was more blunt, telling the New York Post recently, "Hockey owners won't do this; they'll fight to the end not to share their revenues, since most of them get their revenue locally. The real trouble is that the conflict isn't going to just a labor issue of players versus owners — it's going to be owners against owners."

It's an issue that splits big market teams against smaller market teams. Teams that can generate big time revenues against teams at the bottom of the revenue food chain.

NHL owners aren't talking about the issue because Bettman has imposed a gag order on the CBA and related issues, but others aren't afraid to do it for the owners.

Here's a comment from Vartan Kupelian and Mike O'Hara of the Detroit News on what Red Wings owner Mike Ilitch might be thinking about revenue sharing.

"The Red Wings and Joe Louis Arena during hockey season are cash cows for Ilitch. The Red Wings have been a power for more than a decade and have won the Stanley Cup three times.

"Now you’re being told the landscape must change and that you must help the weaker franchises survive. But you don’t want a salary cap or other measures that would restrict your ability to put together the best team.

"You don’t want revenue sharing because you don’t want to send money down to Nashville, Florida or Carolina. Why would you? You’ve done your business well, hired the right people at the right times and put them in the right positions. But those teams — Nashville, Florida, Carolina and others — are going to the NHL and Ilitch with hats in hand."

Detroit, Toronto, Philadelphia, and the New York Rangers all produce big revenues and might have a problem sending it to teams that don't do a good job of marketing their teams and producing revenue.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

So of that 70% of revenues shared, how much of it is NOT broadcast revenues? What is the percentage of non-broadcast related sharing? Just curious.

I think the best revenue sharing scheme would be for teams to get 100% of the gate for their road trips (no home game revenue other than concessions). Teams live on 41 games of revenue, so why not away game gates rather than home? All of a sudden the onus is placed on teams to be competitive, play an exciting brand of hockey and be promoted league wide, instead of only in their local market or division. Those that draw well will be rewarded. No more looking at your season ticket pack and trying to give away your Predator tickets because they are boring and not much of a draw. If this is the situation then the Predators are the ones who suffer and they are the ones who would have to change the way they play and the way they promote themselves.

Its a pipedream I know, but it sure would make the owners and players work a little harder for their money and likely improve the quality of the game.

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

Actually the NHLPA has stated if the NHL is prepared to share revenues at the level of the NFL then the players would be prepared to look at a salary cap. They have stated this on several ocassions the latest being:

"If Bettman wants to revenue share 70 percent of all their revenues we can look at different mechanisms, but they have made pretty plain to us that they have only the most nominal, nominal notions of revenue sharing. We're the ones who are trying to push the envelope and get more revenue sharing and we are willing to take taxes on player payroll to try to create pools for revenue sharing. I think it's important." Ted Saskin - November 18, 2004 on BaD Radio Dallas/Fort Worth.

Currently the NHL shares revenues at about 9% and the NFL at about 70%. Problem is Bettman cannot go down the revenue share road because it would pit owner against owner and likely cost him his job. As has been noted Bettman's support for the lockout is about a mile wide and an inch deep. It has been speculated that the real reason for cancelling the league meeting the other day was because there were going to be some hard questions from some of the high revenue owners.

A report on the NHL by by investment banker Moag & Company this past summer summed up the league's stand on revenue sharing this way:

"There is currently no plan emanating from the Commissioner’s office to tie a salary cap to revenue sharing. Previously, the players’ union has said that it would only consider limiting salaries in the context of significant revenue sharing. That said, the league has suggested in the past that revenue sharing does not require NHLPA approval. If nothing else, this rhetoric suggests that the owners have been unable to agree even amongst themselves as it relates to revenue sharing."

A consultant who works for the NHL was more blunt, telling the New York Post recently, "Hockey owners won't do this; they'll fight to the end not to share their revenues, since most of them get their revenue locally. The real trouble is that the conflict isn't going to just a labor issue of players versus owners — it's going to be owners against owners."

It's an issue that splits big market teams against smaller market teams. Teams that can generate big time revenues against teams at the bottom of the revenue food chain.

NHL owners aren't talking about the issue because Bettman has imposed a gag order on the CBA and related issues, but others aren't afraid to do it for the owners.

Here's a comment from Vartan Kupelian and Mike O'Hara of the Detroit News on what Red Wings owner Mike Ilitch might be thinking about revenue sharing.

"The Red Wings and Joe Louis Arena during hockey season are cash cows for Ilitch. The Red Wings have been a power for more than a decade and have won the Stanley Cup three times.

"Now you’re being told the landscape must change and that you must help the weaker franchises survive. But you don’t want a salary cap or other measures that would restrict your ability to put together the best team.

"You don’t want revenue sharing because you don’t want to send money down to Nashville, Florida or Carolina. Why would you? You’ve done your business well, hired the right people at the right times and put them in the right positions. But those teams — Nashville, Florida, Carolina and others — are going to the NHL and Ilitch with hats in hand."

Detroit, Toronto, Philadelphia, and the New York Rangers all produce big revenues and might have a problem sending it to teams that don't do a good job of marketing their teams and producing revenue.

Did you listen to the archive? Linden was talking about how the league needs to revenue share. He was talking about the NFL and how they share. Then a caller asks him, "If you were satisfied with the revenue sharing aspect, would you accept a salary cap?". Linden ends up saying they shouldn't have to go that route and that a salary cap is not what the fans really want.

Goodenow is the top guy, but even the president of the NHLPA firmy said they will never accept a cap, even under those terms.

 

[Go Flames Go*]

Trevor Linden is a *****, and hes one of the worst humans in the world right now. Where is the help for the TSNUMANI people huh Linden? I woul like to share some of the rumours I heard about him but I cannot. Linden dosent decide what the fans want you geek, we want a cap u big idiot.

 

[SuperUnknown]

I think the best revenue sharing scheme would be for teams to get 100% of the gate for their road trips (no home game revenue other than concessions). Teams live on 41 games of revenue, so why not away game gates rather than home? All of a sudden the onus is placed on teams to be competitive, play an exciting brand of hockey and be promoted league wide, instead of only in their local market or division. Those that draw well will be rewarded. No more looking at your season ticket pack and trying to give away your Predator tickets because they are boring and not much of a draw. If this is the situation then the Predators are the ones who suffer and they are the ones who would have to change the way they play and the way they promote themselves.

Its a pipedream I know, but it sure would make the owners and players work a little harder for their money and likely improve the quality of the game.

How long in your scheme before a team plays inside an empty arena? (cause they don't care about bringing people to their rink?)

 

[CarlRacki]

Actually the NHLPA has stated if the NHL is prepared to share revenues at the level of the NFL then the players would be prepared to look at a salary cap. They have stated this on several ocassions the latest being:

"If Bettman wants to revenue share 70 percent of all their revenues we can look at different mechanisms, but they have made pretty plain to us that they have only the most nominal, nominal notions of revenue sharing. We're the ones who are trying to push the envelope and get more revenue sharing and we are willing to take taxes on player payroll to try to create pools for revenue sharing. I think it's important." Ted Saskin - November 18, 2004 on BaD Radio Dallas/Fort Worth.

This is a remarkably disingenuous comment. Anyone in their right mind knows that the NFL's massive television contract makes its revenue sharing incomparable to any other league, and especially the NHL.
The NFL gets most of its revenue from television and all of that money is shared. As a result, the league doesn't have to share many other revenue streams in order to hit that 70 percent figure. (The NFL shares only 40 percent of gate and nothing from suites, parking, concessions, etc.)
The NHL, on the other hand, gets almost nothing in its national TV contract, meaning that in order to hit a 70 percent figure they'd have to share 2/3 of their gate, 2/3 of their local broadcast rights and at least a portion of every other revenue stream that exists. That won't happen.

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

This is a remarkably disingenuous comment. Anyone in their right mind knows that the NFL's massive television contract makes its revenue sharing incomparable to any other league, and especially the NHL.
The NFL gets most of its revenue from television and all of that money is shared. As a result, the league doesn't have to share many other revenue streams in order to hit that 70 percent figure. (The NFL shares only 40 percent of gate and nothing from suites, parking, concessions, etc.)
The NHL, on the other hand, gets almost nothing in its national TV contract, meaning that in order to hit a 70 percent figure they'd have to share 2/3 of their gate, 2/3 of their local broadcast rights and at least a portion of every other revenue stream that exists. That won't happen.

It's staggering that an NFL team can pay off a 80 million dollar payroll with JUST the Television revenue coming in.. That's insane. How much does an NHL team get? like 3-4 Million?