2011 Revenue Sharing

[LadyStanley]

http://www.bluejacketsxtra.com/live.../23/calvert-will-take-fluky-goal.html?sid=101

[Columbus Blue Jackets] Team president Mike Priest told The Dispatch that he's not optimistic about the club receiving a full portion when NHL revenue-sharing checks are cut this year. The franchise likely will incur a 25 percent penalty - perhaps as much as $2.25 million - for not meeting league financial mandates. To qualify for a complete portion, which last year was about $10 million, a team must exceed 14,000 in attendance per game and have a revenue-growth rate that matches or exceeds that of the league average.
The Blue Jackets were averaging 13,415 fans heading into last night's game, an 11.7 percent dip from last season. Though the team might hit the attendance mark, Priest doesn't expect revenue to keep pace with the NHL average.

Click to read more...

 

[King Woodballs]

****** deal for them
I wonder how many teams dont qualify because of the same reason

 

[AllByDesign]

They also stand a chance of making the playoffs. That could help mitigate the offset.

 

[LadyStanley]

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.

 

[kdb209]

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 top 10 revenue-producing franchises contribute to a pool of money that is spread among the bottom 15 revenue-producing teams each offseason, as long as a bottom-15 club isn't located in a top-10 television market.

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

Local Television Market Universe Estimates
Comparisons of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Market Ranks

2009-10 2010-11 2010 2011
Rank Rank Difference DMA Name TV Homes TV Homes
1 1 New York 7,493,530 7,515,330
2 2 Los Angeles 5,659,170 5,666,900
3 3 Chicago 3,501,010 3,502,610
4 4 Philadelphia 2,955,190 3,015,820
5 5 Dallas-Ft. Worth 2,544,410 2,594,630
6 6 San Francisco-Oak-San Jose 2,503,400 2,523,520
7 7 Boston (Manchester) 2,410,180 2,460,290
8 8 Atlanta 2,387,520 2,407,080
9 9 Washington, DC (Hagrstwn) 2,335,040 2,389,710
10 10 Houston 2,123,460 2,177,220

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.

 

[Fugu]

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.

****** deal for them
I wonder how many teams dont qualify because of the same reason

Most of the teams that are in the worst financial shape. Ironic, eh?

 

[Confucius]

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.

So when a team does'nt earn a full share, who gets the part the team misses out on?