Shedding Light on NHL Revenue Sharing

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by handtrick, Aug 13, 2005.

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

    handtrick Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Occupation:
    hand surgeon
    Location:
    Chattanooga, TN
    Found this on another board....and it appears to clear up some things about who gets revenue sharing, what markers they have to stay below, escrows, the fabled "midpoint," etc:

    There's an informative article in the 8/1/2005 issue of Sports Business Journal [http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/ ]that tackles the whole "midpoint" issue with regards to NHL revenue sharing, escrow, and payrolls. Obviously the confusion about this goes beyond this message board; the article states, "even some of the people who negotiated the deal confess they don't fully understand it all." To summarize the article:

    Each year the league sets a payroll midpoint, equaling 54% of the avg. club's revenue
    Teams can spend up to $8 mill. above or below the midpoint (the range is slightly higher for the 2005-06 season)
    Since teams can spend anywhere in this $16 mill. range, there's a high probability that total compensation of players will be greater than 54%
    To protect against such overpayment, the league requires a portion of each player's salary to be set in escrow; that money will be used as one of several sources to fund revenue sharing, which is designed to allow representative and competitive payrolls
    Clubs start with 54% of their own revenues for payroll, and revenue sharing makes up the difference.

    There are two batches of revenue sharing:
    First batch - equal to 4.5% of league revenues (estimated to be $78 mill. this season); this batch aims to allow clubs to afford payrolls of $4 mill. below the midpoint; it is funded by league media revenue, playoff gate receipts, escrow funds, and top-grossing clubs

    Second batch - designed to help clubs get to the midpoint but not over it; funded by excess escrow funds, if available

    Any leftover escrow funds are to be distributed evenly between all 30 NHL clubs.

    An example: a club has revenue of $50 mill. in a season when the midpoint is set at $32 mill. They would be able to afford a payroll of only $27 mill. (54% of their revenue) "in the league's eyes." They would receive, as the first batch of revenue sharing, $1 mill. from the league to get to within $4 mill. of the $32 mill. midpoint. The second batch (if they are eligible--see below), would provide up to an additional $4 mill., bringing them to the $32 mill. midpoint.

    Rules:

    Any club in the bottom half of revenues is eligible for the first batch (regardless of payroll amount)
    Any club spending over the midpoint on player salaries is not eligible for the second batch
    Clubs in markets with more than 2.5 mill. TV households are ineligible for revenue sharing
    By the third year of the deal, clubs will have to grow revenues faster than the league avg. and have attendance of 75% of capacity to be eligible for their full revenue-sharing allotment
    By the fourth year, the required attendace capacity increases to 80%
    That's essentially the article. It doesn't answer every question but hopefully is a start at understanding this complex agreement.

    To view the 8/1` archived article referenced above, unfortunately, you have to become a paid subscriber, and not just a "free trial" member.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2005
  2. Tra La La

    Tra La La Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    4,707
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Buffalo, New York
    So For This Season 28.6 million is the " But Not Over point" ?
     
  3. kdb209

    kdb209 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    16,271
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Thanks for posting this - Great, finally some real information.

    I wonder if Andy Bernstein (SBJscribe) could find a way to make the whole article available to us.

    What's the NHL afraid of? Why won't they release the damn thing.
     
  4. Captain Ron

    Captain Ron Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Messages:
    17,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Gardnerville, NV
    Home Page:
    Somebody on a different thread said that the CBA would not be released to the public until the IIHL transfer agreement was signed.

    I don't know if this is true. But it would explain why no CBA document has been released yet.
     
  5. sakicisstupid

    sakicisstupid Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,885
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Home Page:
    lol. funny how a large chunk of the revenues being shared with the bottom tiered clubs comes from the players themselves. this form of revenue sharing is a joke (which, as an avs fan, I'm grateful for because I want as little of my money funding other teams). they should instead rename it as a "financial assistance plan" as it closely mimics how much money canadian clubs were receiving from the "canadian assistance plan".

    thx for the post btw. there was another important point that i found very interesting...the NHL intends to have a payroll gap of 16 M in the following seasons (as I understand from your post). this means if revenues reach 2.2 B in a few years (i.e. pre-lockout revenues), the cap becomes a lofty 48.3 M.
     
  6. Captain Ron

    Captain Ron Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Messages:
    17,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Gardnerville, NV
    Home Page:
    But the difference is this. In the new NHL the small market teams would be given money via revenue sharing in order to pay up to $40.3 million in salaries. Some teams (Minnesota, Washington, Nashville,etc) would be thrilled to have that kind of spending ability.
     
  7. handtrick

    handtrick Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Occupation:
    hand surgeon
    Location:
    Chattanooga, TN

    yes...$28.6mill is apparently the "but not over Point" to receive both batches of of revenue sharing.....as long as you don't have 2.5 mill TVs households in your area.

    This is the number that the Predators owner quoted to the media as the number that they won't exceed and expect to carry a payroll of around $26 mill to allow them some flexibility at the trade deadline prior to the playoffs.
     
  8. Captain Ron

    Captain Ron Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Messages:
    17,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Gardnerville, NV
    Home Page:
    If this is correct it goes against the theory that teams that overspend will get a refund from escrow money.

    I think this is a very fair way to do it. If big market teams that are sending to the cap cause the league to go over the 54% cost certainty it only seems fair that the teams that keep their team salary below the $28.6 average should receive the escrow refunds.
     
  9. Resolute

    Resolute Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    AB
    Minnesota already has that spending ability. They just havent used it.
     
  10. Captain Ron

    Captain Ron Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Messages:
    17,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Gardnerville, NV
    Home Page:
    The average team payroll is suppose to $30.6 million. I think the $28.6 figure is suppose to be without player costs.

    $30.6 M - $2 million player expenses = $28.6 M average alloted for player salaries.
     
  11. Captain Ron

    Captain Ron Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Messages:
    17,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Gardnerville, NV
    Home Page:
    Well if the revenue increased to $2.2 billion they would have to spend more. Since the minimum team payroll would be $32.33 million.
     
  12. Captain Ron

    Captain Ron Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Messages:
    17,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Gardnerville, NV
    Home Page:
    I assume you are a Minnesota fan. For your sake and the sake of other Wild fans I hope the tight spending trend reverses.

    I am sure you guys would like to have some highly talented UFA's potentially come your way in future seasons. :)
     
  13. Resolute

    Resolute Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    AB
    True, but the point was: Minnesota can spend if it chooses to. They were top ten in NHL revenues in 03-04 according to Forbes, and are making money hand over fist. The Wild do not belong on a list of paupers.

    However, that is not to say that they *should* be spending more. If they think they can win with a lower payroll, cool. Though I'm sure those 41 sellouts a year would like to see a legit playoff team one day.
     
  14. sakicisstupid

    sakicisstupid Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,885
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Home Page:
    then, isn't the revenue sharing model supposed to allow washington to spend up to 32 M? yet, even with their payroll/budget at 25 M, they still anticipate losing more money? i believe the same goes for st. louis. however, certain small markets will benefit from the revenue sharing and pay up to 40.3 M as long as they don't expect to make a profit.

    it's also interesting to note that the 2nd form of revenue sharing kinda acts like a luxury tax that penalizes teams that go over the midpoint threshold.
     
  15. Captain Ron

    Captain Ron Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Messages:
    17,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Gardnerville, NV
    Home Page:

    Actually the midpoint this year is $28.6 million. So to answer your question. Yes, according to the way the revenue sharing is presented the Capitals should be able to have a payroll of at least $28.6 million. The first form of sharing should get the Capitals to a payroll of $24.6 million. Then the second form would kick in the last $4 million. So a team could budget for a $22 million payroll and the league would basically pay the rest. If teams can't make a profit with a $22 million payroll then they have bigger problems.
     
  16. sakicisstupid

    sakicisstupid Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,885
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Home Page:
    http://washingtoncaps.com/news/index.cfm?cont_id=287222

    Third, with a $25 million payroll, our team will still lose money, but in the vernacular those losses will be considered a “gentleman’s loss.†As a league, we will have less TV revenue, and locally I don’t think we can expect to increase our ticket revenue. However, our ticket prices are going down even more. That price reduction may help attendance, but we don’t anticipate it helping overall revenues.
     
  17. ThePhoenixx

    ThePhoenixx Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,611
    Likes Received:
    462
    Trophy Points:
    124

    Not only that...

    Second batch - designed to help clubs get to the midpoint but not over it; funded by excess escrow funds, if available

    If available are the key words here..

    Sounds like the big market boys just got their advantage back...albeit a much smaller one, only 8-12 mil now, not 50-60 mil like before..

    That is unless a big fat TV contract pops up in a couple years. Then all bets are off. I sure hope the league is serious about obstruction. More offense means more excitement which leads to more fans. Which leads to more adverstisers.

    Should be a very interesting time indeed.
     
  18. Chainshot

    Chainshot Give 'em Enough Rope

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2002
    Messages:
    78,950
    Likes Received:
    6,442
    Trophy Points:
    232
    Occupation:
    Herding Cats
    Location:
    Costa Rica
    Awards:
    Which is why the Sabres are holding to $28 million for their own personal cap. It puts them for this season in the first and second category for revenue sharing.

    (OT: Nice new nick' too.)
     
  19. Irish Blues

    Irish Blues Still on hiatus

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Messages:
    21,801
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Occupation:
    Actuary
    This thread is being cut loose - hopefully with a new (corrected) sticky coming soon that covers all of this.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"