Was Lack of Meaningful Revenue Sharing the Real Stumbling Block?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Boilers*

Guest
Y'know Paul Martin keeps offering help in some manner (I never voted for him but hey I'm Albertan ;) ) Since he has a minority gov't it's possible this is a viable opportunity to say "Hey you want to really promote a united Canada? You want to showcase Canada? Instead of pissing away 1 billion in Advertising Scandals how's about dropping taxes on all things hockey related. Promote our sport it truley is our one recognizable export, (besides,er.. maple syrup?). And hey you never know it's possible that at least the taxes on the buildings are erased anyway. Also the budget hasn't been announced yet it's not too late.
 

arnie

Registered User
Dec 20, 2004
520
0
handtrick said:
The only logical explanation for what happened today that I can come up with is that the small market teams that killed the deal today did it as leverage to get the big market owners to revenue share....essentially holding this season hostage to getting the revenue sharing that these big market teams all but refuse to do.

Why else would the players angry, feeling like they were duped.....because they WERE. This was an owners fight today, and the players were just here for window dressing. I think the time for chicken between Bettman and Goodenow was Wednesday, but the day for chicken between the big market owners and small market owners was today......

I could still envision a rabbit being pulled out of the hat by the end of the weekend, but that hope is slim to none. If it does occur, I think you will see meaningful revenue sharing as part of it.

This is a crock. I hate posts like this where people think that they are mind readers and know some dark hidden secret. Let's get real.

Revenue sharing is a smokescreen. The NHPLA wants revenue sharing like the NFL. The revenue that the NFL shares is completely based the huge national TV contract. Teams don't share local TV or radio, not corporate sponsoship, not gate receipts, etc. Further, the Redskins revenue is $100 million higher than the Packers. So what. Both are competitive but the Redskins make a lot more money. Yet the league works fine. The bottom line is that the NHL is not the NFL and there can never be significant revenue sharing without the kind of TV contract the NFL has. Oh and by the way, the NHL has had some revenue sharing for years. They've been supporting small market Canadians teams when the Canadian dollar was low.

The reason that there is a strike is simply this: Teams like Columbus and Montreal sell out every day and still lose money. But the NHPLA doesn't believe or doesn't care that most NHL teams only has so much money to spend. Goodenow is already on record as saying that he doesn';t care how many teams go bankrupt because sucker will come along to buy them.

What makes your post all the more ridiculous was that Lemieux owns a small market team, yet he was in there pushing for a deal.
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
arnie said:
This is a crock. I hate posts like this where people think that they are mind readers and know some dark hidden secret. Let's get real.

Revenue sharing is a smokescreen. The NHPLA wants revenue sharing like the NFL. The revenue that the NFL shares is completely based the huge national TV contract. Teams don't share local TV or radio, not corporate sponsoship, not gate receipts, etc. Further, the Redskins revenue is $100 million higher than the Packers. So what. Both are competitive but the Redskins make a lot more money. Yet the league works fine. The bottom line is that the NHL is not the NFL and there can never be significant revenue sharing without the kind of TV contract the NFL has. Oh and by the way, the NHL has had some revenue sharing for years. They've been supporting small market Canadians teams when the Canadian dollar was low.

The reason that there is a strike is simply this: Teams like Columbus and Montreal sell out every day and still lose money. But the NHPLA doesn't believe or doesn't care that most NHL teams only has so much money to spend. Goodenow is already on record as saying that he doesn';t care how many teams go bankrupt because sucker will come along to buy them.

What makes your post all the more ridiculous was that Lemieux owns a small market team, yet he was in there pushing for a deal.

What strike?

As for revenue sharing, a cap simply can't work without it. The fact that the owners aren't interested just goes to show you that they couldn't give a **** about the health of each franchise and the league as a whole.

If there are teams now who supposedly can't survive on $25-30m caps, then fold them, because there won't be a cap in that range and a $42.5m cap would have accomplished nothing.

All the owners want to do is set a cap at a level of the lowest common denominator so that all 30 teams can benefit and even a team in Alabama could make money.

If you care about the health of the league, revenue share and set the cap at a reasonable level. If you don't, get rid of 10 teams.
 

ATLANTARANGER*

Guest
If Montreal is a leader in genearting revenue and

espion said:
Not for everyone...

MTL is a Canadian team you would think could use help there. However Boivin (team president) says his team is amongst the league leaders in revenue and they still register losses every year. Their problem is that their expenses are too high.

Reducing the payroll therefore (through a cap and the roll back) could proove to be helpfull. However, for a team like MTL, revenue sharing would only hurt them. They would have to help out the "poorer" teams (in revenues) and thus creating even greater losses than they are already suffering.

still loses money, I would take a serious look into how they manage themselves.
Poor management is just as viable a cause as player salaries. Because of the problems with the CAD exchange rate, I would like to see soemthing done to remove that from the equation for the teams in canada.

What was presented in the Levitt report has as much value as a used piece of toilet paper as far as determining whether teams made or lost money.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Jobu said:
As for revenue sharing, a cap simply can't work without it. The fact that the owners aren't interested just goes to show you that they couldn't give a **** about the health of each franchise and the league as a whole.

What? Of course a cap works without revenue sharing. In fact, it works better *without* it.

Take your current split between the "haves" and the "have-nots", 10 haves / 20 have-nots, whatever you think it is. Without revenue sharing, only the "haves" will be near the cap, while the "have-nots" will be much lower than the cap, at whatever level they can afford. That's essentially what we have now, a few huge salaries, some middling folks, and a bunch way below that.

Now add "meaningful revenue sharing". What have you done? The "haves" still have lots of cash, so they stay at the cap level. But now the "have-nots" have *become* "haves". You've just given them $10-$15 million dollars each, or whatever. And what happens to that cash? It gets put right into player salaries so those teams can compete, and now each of those teams has a much higher payroll, and are now near the cap level.

Result? Total payroll league wide is much higher with revenue sharing than without.

Which is why the league is against revenue sharing, and the players are insisting on it.
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
PecaFan said:
Without revenue sharing, only the "haves" will be near the cap, while the "have-nots" will be much lower than the cap, at whatever level they can afford.

Oh really? But I thought the owners didn't want a $45m cap because it would act as a magnet and draw all teams up to $45m. Owners and their cronies need to get their stories straight.

Now add "meaningful revenue sharing". What have you done? The "haves" still have lots of cash, so they stay at the cap level. But now the "have-nots" have *become* "haves". You've just given them $10-$15 million dollars each, or whatever. And what happens to that cash? It gets put right into player salaries so those teams can compete, and now each of those teams has a much higher payroll, and are now near the cap level.

Fancy that, all teams are on a level playing field. I thought that's what owners wanted. Oops, no it's not.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Jobu said:
Oh really? But I thought the owners didn't want a $45m cap because it would act as a magnet and draw all teams up to $45m. Owners and their cronies need to get their stories straight.



Fancy that, all teams are on a level playing field. I thought that's what owners wanted. Oops, no it's not.

The owners want a level playing feild to increase revenue and to make profits.

Who can blame them for not wanting to increase the PA's share of the pie while giving away their profits?

If teams were allowed to make some profits, but had to share any profits past a certain point ($10-15M?) with the PA, then the PA could increase their take while still allowing for increased revenues and the possibility of profits for all owners.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Jobu said:
Oh really? But I thought the owners didn't want a $45m cap because it would act as a magnet and draw all teams up to $45m. Owners and their cronies need to get their stories straight.

Exactly. Under the PA offer, it would be a magnet. Under the NHL offer, it wouldn't. As I just explained.
 

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
Jaded-Fan said:
hell, ESPN may just cancel the piddling $70 million option they had for next year and the year after . . . read that again . . . $70 measly dollars . . . that is the cost of Derik Jeter's toilet paper. And they are debating cancelling it. Wake up players. What kind of deal can the owners offer when they have no television revenue to speak of? The next telelvison deal may be $35 million.

The danger isn't the lost revenue. The danger is having the worlds prominent sports network declaring that NHL hockey is television loser.
It's about exposure.
It's about credibility.

Lose those two things and the sponsors might flee, too.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
What revenue sharing - meaningful or otherwise????

Here is Jeremy Jacobs owner of the Bruins who obviously does not get the concept of revenue sharing when explaining that the owners never really intended to move off the $42.5 million proposed cap:

"I thought [$42.5 million] was a figure we could live with, but we were stretching," said Jacobs. "And I know there are teams in this league that cannot survive at [$49 million]. Even at $42.5 million, there are clubs that would still be in peril, definitely. To make that work, we'd still have to take money from other clubs to support them."

Well, duh!!!!!!!!
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Wetcoaster said:
What revenue sharing - meaningful or otherwise????

Here is Jeremy Jacobs owner of the Bruins who obviously does not get the concept of revenue sharing when explaining that the owners never really intended to move off the $42.5 million proposed cap:

Of course he "gets it". Revenue sharing is a salary inflator. The point is to lower salaries, and keep them there. Thus, small revenue sharing to allow teams to break even is needed, not massive revenue sharing.

You can try and paint this "NHL must massively revenue share" as for the good of the league, in reality we know it's for the good of the players.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
PecaFan said:
Of course he "gets it". Revenue sharing is a salary inflator. The point is to lower salaries, and keep them there. Thus, small revenue sharing to allow teams to break even is needed, not massive revenue sharing.

You can try and paint this "NHL must massively revenue share" as for the good of the league, in reality we know it's for the good of the players.
Not according to the NFL.
 

Greschner4

Registered User
Jan 21, 2005
871
222
Wetcoaster said:
Not according to the NFL.

The NFL shares its joint TV contract and that's basically it. The NHL shares its joint TV contracts also. Both leagues "revenue share" basically the same components of their revenue streams.

It just happens that the NFL's is a license to print money and the NHL's is peanuts.

Revenue sharing is not necessary to have a cap. The real teams aren't going to give the lame teams their money so they can spend it on players, so Goodenow and his minions need to move on.
 

vanlady

Registered User
Nov 3, 2004
810
0
Greschner4 said:
The NFL shares its joint TV contract and that's basically it. The NHL shares its joint TV contracts also. Both leagues "revenue share" basically the same components of their revenue streams.

It just happens that the NFL's is a license to print money and the NHL's is peanuts.

Revenue sharing is not necessary to have a cap. The real teams aren't going to give the lame teams their money so they can spend it on players, so Goodenow and his minions need to move on.

Where did you get this idea from. The NFL shares basically all of its revenue. Here have a read

http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/12-14cba.htm
http://aolnetscape.workopolis.com/servlet/Content/qprinter/20050205/BRUNT05
 

Jobu

Registered User
Nov 17, 2003
3,264
0
Vancouver
Visit site
PecaFan said:
Exactly. Under the PA offer, it would be a magnet. Under the NHL offer, it wouldn't. As I just explained.

:lol :lol :lol

You're delusional. Of course, you did try to say you weren't wrong a million times in another thread when you were.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Jobu said:
:lol :lol :lol

You're delusional.

Riiight. The "delusional" one here is you, who thinks that if you give a team $10 million dollars for free, that it won't go into the payroll. That's the entire point of revenue sharing. Giving money to the little teams, so they can spend it on players, and try and compete with the big boys!!

Jesus. :shakehead
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Greschner4 said:
The NFL shares its joint TV contract and that's basically it.
That is not true. The NFL shares gate receipts among a number of other revenue streams per their CBA.
 

handtrick

Registered User
Sep 18, 2004
3,217
13
Chattanooga, TN
Someone help me out here......when the term "revenue sharing" is used....does it mean big markets helping out small markets or players sharing in a percent of the revenue. It seems that people are using this same term to describe both, but meaning one or the other in their context. Sometimes even with context it is unclear which the mean.
 

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,088
13,876
Missouri
people may want to realise that revenue sharing in the NFL is not entrenched in the CBA. It is something the owners do by themsleves and that the players have no say in. It isn't hard to understand that the NHL doesn't want to put that on the table or enshrine it in the CBA...it isn't the players business beyond perhaps a guarantee that 30 teams will survive in the NHL and setting a payroll floor.

And the NFL only began sharing the gate receipts a few years ago...without approval of the NFLPA. Why? because the salary cap is calculated on gross leaguewide revenues. It doesn't matter to the players how or even if the revneues are shared beyond job guarantees. Which is what the NHL has tried to do. If the cap is based on a certain and reasonable percentage (i.e. the 55-60% the NHL was offering and it will end up being) it is irrelevant to the PA how the money gets distributed (again beyond the potential guarantee that 30 teams survive). The only thing that matters is the global revenue pool not who contributes what to the pool. If the NHL shares 100 % or it shares 0 % the global revenue pool remains unchanged and as such revenue sharing has no effect on the cap calculation making it no concern of the players. It is a smokescreen and even a step by the NHL to offer to put it in the CBA or guarantee it. The PA gave a $65 mil revenue sharing plan as one option Dec 9th...the NHL offered $90 mil by the end. It's a smokescreen no matter which way you look at it.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
handtrick said:
Someone help me out here......when the term "revenue sharing" is used....does it mean big markets helping out small markets or players sharing in a percent of the revenue. It seems that people are using this same term to describe both, but meaning one or the other in their context. Sometimes even with context it is unclear which the mean.

There's been almost zero discussion of revenue sharing with the players. Pretty much everything you've read on the entire board is talking about revenue sharing between owners.

If it's with the players, the proper term there should be "profit sharing".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->