TSN article: Harsh fines over 60 mil?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Street Hawk

Registered User
Feb 18, 2003
5,348
19
Visit site
Rev. sharing...

thinkwild said:
Nonsense. I think this same quote was repeated in 1918, 1945, 1962, 1975, 1987, 1994. In a market like Edmonton, the revenue stream called winni9ng in the playoffs for a couple of years hasnt even been broached yet.

I think everyone sees the revenues rising, not falling.





Where are you getting that from? I heard, that there was no up fronts rights fee, and the league was entering into a revenue sharing agreement with that network. It could be a very creative patnership, hard to track in Hockey Related Revenue, possibly more profitable agreement than before. I havent heard any of the other networks suggesting they wont be paying up front rights fees.

Remember the NHL is coming off a 5 year 600 million dollar deal with ABC, so they got a guaranteed 125 million per season. The deal they now have with NBC, they are not guaranteed anything. Given that the US fan base is going to be put off by this work stoppage, can the ratings for the NHL on NBC be that great? And, it was only like a 2 year agreement, so if NBC doesn't like the early returns, that could be it for them and the NHL.

I think you're being way way too optimistic of what NBC can do with the NHL. Given the declining ratings we saw from ABC, the lockout, the lack of offense in the NHL, lack of personalities as compared to the other 3 pro sports leauges, etc. I personally don't expect the NHL to get close to 100 million per season from this NBC deal. But, we'll only find out when the lockout ends.

And with ESPN, the deal the NHL resigned with them in the spring/summer called for a reduction in televised games, meaning a drop of I heard 50% in the tv deal.
 

Jason MacIsaac

Registered User
Jan 13, 2004
22,221
5,935
Halifax, NS
Canadian teams are going to come out of this lockout in good position. The dollar is hovering around .85 and if a deal of this kind comes through expect the canadian teams to get 7 or 8 million per season in luxery tax.
 

ehc73

Registered User
Jan 18, 2003
5,930
0
Coquitlam, BC
Visit site
Pepper said:
Are you kidding US? 70% of Cups won by only 3 different teams in the last 10 years. The point of every NHL team is to win the cup, very few can do it.

Were you opposed to the dynasties of eras past? The Canadiens with their 24 Cups? The Islanders dominating the early 80s?

Why do people cry for competitive balance when they like the dynasties that were created before?

Cost certainty does not mean competitive balance. You still have to have good management to get a good team. You can put together a team that is made up of career AHLers and come under a proposed cap, but can you be competitive? The owners want the money. So do the players.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
ehc73 said:
Were you opposed to the dynasties of eras past? The Canadiens with their 24 Cups? The Islanders dominating the early 80s?

Why do people cry for competitive balance when they like the dynasties that were created before?

Cost certainty does not mean competitive balance. You still have to have good management to get a good team. You can put together a team that is made up of career AHLers and come under a proposed cap, but can you be competitive? The owners want the money. So do the players.

No I wasn't against dynasties!

Back then every team had a chance to compete for the cup, if they couldn't they just weren't good enough because somebody had managed his team better.

Nowadays a team like Oilers can't compete because they simply don't have the resources to go againt team like Wings no matter how well their team is run.

I don't care if Wings win the next 10 cups if they do it under the same circumstances and with about the same resources as other teams.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
thinkwild said:
Nonsense. I think this same quote was repeated in 1918, 1945, 1962, 1975, 1987, 1994. In a market like Edmonton, the revenue stream called winni9ng in the playoffs for a couple of years hasnt even been broached yet.

I think everyone sees the revenues rising, not falling.

Winning in the playoffs isn't a revenue stream, that's a totally unpredicatable bonus. Only a few teams can go deep into the playoffs. A revenue stream is something that's available to all clubs. TV revenue, season ticket revenue. Merchandising. Pay per view.

What *new* revenue stream that hasn't been tapped by *anyone* is waiting?

If revenues were rising, why wouldn't the players hook onto that as a guaranteed percentage then? You can't lose, you're guaranteed that salaries are going to rise. I already answered that question. Because they know they aren't rising, and want to keep their salaries high. The players aren't dumb.

Where are you getting that from? I heard, that there was no up fronts rights fee, and the league was entering into a revenue sharing agreement with that network. It could be a very creative patnership, hard to track in Hockey Related Revenue, possibly more profitable agreement than before. I havent heard any of the other networks suggesting they wont be paying up front rights fees.

The last US deal they signed was worth $600 million. The current ones are worth $60 million. There's talk about options, which brings it up to around $200 million max. That's hundreds of millions less, just as I said.

And the NBC deal isn't going to be worth anything to them. Basically NBC gets the first dibs on the profits, and the NHL gets what's left over. Which'll pretty much be the bones.
 

Motown Beatdown

Need a slump buster
Mar 5, 2002
8,572
0
Indianapolis
Visit site
PecaFan said:
The last US deal they signed was worth $600 million. The current ones are worth $60 million. There's talk about options, which brings it up to around $200 million max. That's hundreds of millions less, just as I said.


Actually the TV is half of what it was before, that 600 million was over 5 years, or 120 million a year. The new deal weith ESPN is for one year for 60 million.

The problem is why would ESPN sign up for another year when there is no hockey to be shown this year?
 

copperandblue

Registered User
Sep 15, 2003
10,719
0
Visit site
ehc73 said:
Were you opposed to the dynasties of eras past? The Canadiens with their 24 Cups? The Islanders dominating the early 80s?

Why do people cry for competitive balance when they like the dynasties that were created before?

The repeat winners from the past ten years can't be compared to the dynasties of the 20 years ago.

Teams like the Canadien's, Islanders and Oilers had very little roster turn over during their dynasties compared to the Devil's, Wings and Ave's.

Which imo highlights the problems everyone is arguing. Why is it that until the last CBA every successful team seemed to get built young, primarily stayed together until they experienced their succes and then dropped off to where they needed to start over, and yet in the last 10 years we have seen a few teams go through the first two steps only to change the last one into replacing aging talent with slightly younger but similar talent in order to maintain their success beyond what has traditionally been the norm?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->