Revenue sharing is bad?

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by vadardog, Jun 20, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. vadardog

    vadardog Registered User

    Joined:
    May 29, 2004
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't know why PA types would want revenue sharing. If they accept a linked or caped deal (which they almost certainly will) then revenue sharing will take dollars out of their pocket.

    Lets say a CBA is signed which includes 50% revenue sharing. I believe this will lead to teams spending less on promoting the game and other activities.

    Example: NYR go out and do a study which suggest that if they spend 1 million on advertising they will make 2 million more in revenues. After they revenue share 50% they break even.

    Example 2: Edm believes that if they update concessions at a cost of 1.5 million that they will bring in 2.5 million more in revenues. After they give out 1.25 million in revenue sharing they get to loose 250,000$ for their efforts.
     
  2. Icey

    Icey Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because it allows the team who can barely make the floor minimum to spend more on payroll. A team like Nashville who can barely afford a $22M payroll without revenue sharing, with revenue sharing could have a payroll of maybe $28-30 which to the players means more money. To the league it means a smaller gap between the high and low spending teams, putting everyone on a more even playing field.

    The way they are talking about the revenue sharing working, I don't know if it would really do this though. The league (and owners) would like most of the revenue sharing to come from playoff money, so a team who doesn't make the playoffs or is out in the first game but yet creates a lot of revenue would pay little into it (such as the Rangers), but a team such as Tampa or Calgary who are not known as high revenue teams could end up paying into the pool vs. taking it in because they make it to the finals.

    Just my opinion though.
     
  3. nyrmessier011

    nyrmessier011 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    3,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Charlotte/NYC
    Revenue sharing brings the average salary per team up because the bottom teams have more money to spend. Higher average salary per team = higher average player salary.

    anybody know where i can find team by team salary figures for the passed 10 years or so???
     
  4. me2

    me2 Calling out the crap

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    32,688
    Likes Received:
    916
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Location:
    Blasting the bull***
    http://www.hockeyzoneplus.com/$maseq_e.htm
     
  5. NYR469

    NYR469 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    5,785
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    the exact opposite of what you are saying is true, it will NOT take $$ out of the players pockets, it will put it into their pockets because the small market teams can afford to spend.

    with no revenue sharing, the big market teams spend to the top of the salary range, the small market teams spend at the bottom of the salary range cause thats all they can afford and the big market team pocket huge profits and still a separation between haves and have nots.

    with revenue sharing, the big market teams still spend to the top of the salary range but now the small market teams can also spend toward the top (or atleast middle) of the salary range because they have more $$...so the big market teams have the same payrolls, the small market teams have higher payrolls = more $$ for the players and less separation between the haves and have nots.

    and your examples of teams losing because they made more are unrealistic. in real life scenarios teams will not lose more $$ by making more $$ because of revenue sharing. and teams will not intentionally try to make less $$ to avoid paying because after paying they will still be ahead of the game...it might lead to teams trying to hide revenue in places that can't be touched by revenue sharing but it won't stop them from trying to make more $$>
     
  6. nyr7andcounting

    nyr7andcounting Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nashville believes that if they update concessions at a cost of $1 million, they will bring in $2.5 million more in revenues. Problem is, they don't have that $1 million without revenue sharing.

    Overall a good amount of revenue sharing will strengthen the small markets (good for players) more than it will weaken the big markets....if it weakens them at all. Not to mention some teams that are getting money will spend a little more than they would have without the sharing. It helps both sides, but it definetly doesn't hurt the players.
     

  7. Revenue sharing is great. Its the best thing for sports. The only people who dont like it are the small group of rich clubs. Who cares about them. They just ruin sports anyways. Take a look at baseball as a prime example if you want a different view then the NHL.
     
  8. arnie

    arnie Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2004
    Messages:
    520
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, selling a few more Dolly Parton action figures and hush puppies will turn them into an economic powerhouse.
     
  9. Hasbro

    Hasbro Can He Skate?! Sponsor

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    41,201
    Likes Received:
    1,368
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Drone
    Location:
    South Rectangle
    I spent all my money on this talking Al Gore doll.
     
  10. nyr7andcounting

    nyr7andcounting Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just saying his examples go both ways
     
  11. djtino224

    djtino224 Registered User

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    510
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Long Island
    Revenue sharing is not a bad thing, but it should be regulated. Sometimes you get owners that will pocket the money to buy themselves another yacht or something else of the sort.
     
  12. Gnashville

    Gnashville HFBoards Hall of Famer

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Messages:
    11,065
    Likes Received:
    1,196
    Trophy Points:
    218
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rinne's Glove Side
    That added a lot to the discussion!! a personal insult to everyone in Tennessee.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"