# 54% linkage of total gross revenues or net revenues?

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by QQQ, Mar 25, 2005.

Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
1. ### QQQRegistered User

Joined:
Dec 15, 2003
Messages:
48
0
Trophy Points:
0
What are we talking about? Is the 54% linkage to be based on the total revenues of the all the teams divided by 30? Or 54% of each team's gross revenue is what a team can spend. Or must spend?

Can someone explain linkage for me as I'm confused.

Joined:
Mar 18, 2004
Messages:
43,893
3,123
Trophy Points:
186
The players will end up with 54% (or whatever percentage they end up with in the final negotiations) of net revenues, by a formula agreed upon within the CBA and also audited independently if owners hide revenues.

They work this out in the NFL, NBA, etc. They merely adjust the Cap yearly based on last years revenue calculations.

3. ### MessGlobal Moderator

Joined:
Feb 27, 2002
Messages:
75,770
1,066
Trophy Points:
214
League Revenues .. Based on last Season Levitt report

\$ 2.1 Bil (league revenue) / 30 teams X 54 % = \$ 37,800,000 Per team .. Hard Cap Ceiling .. based on 54% linkage

4. ### QQQRegistered User

Joined:
Dec 15, 2003
Messages:
48
0
Trophy Points:
0
so the owner gets 46% for himself

Not bad. How much is 46% of the 2.2 billion? Math is not my strong suit. Must be in the 30 million range? So 30 million a year? Is that right?

5. ### me2Calling out the crap

Joined:
Jun 28, 2002
Messages:
33,585
1,511
Trophy Points:
214
Location:
Blasting the bull***
Owner pays for the GMs, office staff, coaching staff, community work, general team costs, rink rentals,interest, etc. They don't just drop \$30m in the pocket and head off to the race track.

6. ### QQQRegistered User

Joined:
Dec 15, 2003
Messages:
48
0
Trophy Points:
0
Net revenue or gross?

Jaded Fan says 54 % of net revenue.

When I took business accounting, way back when, net revenue meant after all expenses were deducted and what was left over was profit.

So if 54% linkage is based on net revenue or profit- the players could be playing for nothing seeing as how the league has lost money?

7. ### CMUMikeRegistered User

Joined:
Feb 13, 2005
Messages:
68
0
Trophy Points:
0
54% of whatever the NHL and NHLPA agree on as hockey related revenue. So if that is tickets, TV, and merchandise (for example) and those 3 revenue streams add up to 2B, then the salary cap would be 2B * 54% / 30.

8. ### CarlRackiRegistered User

Joined:
Feb 9, 2004
Messages:
1,438
0
Trophy Points:
0
The 54 percent is gross hockey-related revenues.
If you took accounting way back when you'd know that the owners weren't going to profit \$30 million a year.

9. ### CGGRegistered User

Joined:
Jan 6, 2005
Messages:
4,118
3
Trophy Points:
96
Location:
416
"Net Revenue" is a bit of an invention. It doesn't mean gross revenue, it basically means gross revenue less any costs to get that revenue. Big things like player salaries, front office staff, and rink maintenance aren't deducted. But for things like concession sales, the cost of the hot dog and the guy that sold it to you are deducted from the price of the hotdog to get "net revenue".

10. ### mackdogs*Guest

Like CarlRacki mentioned, and you quoted, it would be a percentage of gross revenue. Net revenue is an invention? Haha, that's funny. Try Accounting 101.