Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by LadyStanley, Feb 23, 2011.
****** deal for them
I wonder how many teams dont qualify because of the same reason
They also stand a chance of making the playoffs. That could help mitigate the offset.
And in addition to getting less revenue per game (as a bigger chunk goes to the league -- part of revenue sharing), offset against no player (salary) costs.
So, they may be paying in (as all playoff teams do) to revenue sharing, and get some (all?) back via RS.
Interesting fact a bit later in the article. Top 10 pay in (as do playoff teams), and distribution is to lowest 15.
There is a bit of mis-information in that blog post.
The exclusion is not for "a top-10 television market" - but for a DMA (or equivalent) with >2.5M Households.
This only excludes: New York (Isles, Rags, & Devils), LA (Kings & Ducks), Chicago (Hawks), Philly (Flyers), Dallas (Stars) and SF Bay Area (Sharks). I don't have Canadian BBM numbers, but Toronto and possibly Montreal are also excluded - not that that would matter.
The Bay Area crossed the 2.5M HH threshold last year - it's possible that Boston will cross it next year and that Atlanta & DC will within a couple of years.
I would not be surprised to see the 2.5M HH rule go away in the next CBA - it was implemented as basically a screw Wirtz rule.
http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/public factsheets/tv/2010-2011 DMA Ranks.pdf
Mods - you may want to update the DMA post in the Business of Hockey Collection of Information/Data Sources. It still has numbers from '07-'08.
Thanks, kdb, but we have to wait for you to dig these up for us.
Most of the teams that are in the worst financial shape. Ironic, eh?
So when a team does'nt earn a full share, who gets the part the team misses out on?
Separate names with a comma.