a new twist ?: "revenue certainty"

[Brent Burns Beard]

most of you know my take on this mess. so i wont go into it.

if you put a knife to my throat and told me if i accepted a % salary tie to revenue (the key point in this issue) i wouldnt be killed and you would give me one concession, this is it.

since the owners want a partnership in this, the players should be able to demand "revenue certainty". why shouldnt there be demands on the owners to guarantee a certain level of revenue ? shouldnt the players be allowed to ask the owners to guarantee a certain level of revenue ?

1) this also means the players dont have to trust the owners figures, they can negotiate with a level of trust .. because:
2) if the owners arent able to generate growing revenues, they pay a penalty to the players.
3) the owners wont be so likely to hide revenue if there is strict enough penalties. hey, they want to make the players live with strict cost certainty, the players should be allowed to ask for similar levels of strictness on how much "revenue" the owners must delare. if the owners arent really hiding any, then they better get on their horses and figure out how to market the NHL. isnt this what they are earning the profit for ? isnt this their role in the industry ? if i am a player, i would be demanding them pull their weight.

this is the same as the owners asking the players to guarantee their luxury tax offer. the players are saying, fine guarantee the revenue doesnt go down.

if the players negotiate a starting point of a % of 2.1b and then demand it a trigger to get out of the contract in 2 or 3 years if revenue isnt up to 2.5b (a negotiated #)

also, if revenue does grow to 2.5b, since this is a partnership, the player % also rises as the revenue grows. this means all parties share in OUR money.

anyhow ... you might be able to convince me to support the owners concept of "cost certainty" if they agree to a similary strict demand of "revenue certainty" from the players.

look forward to thoughts from the other side.

dr

Click to read more...

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

most of you know my take on this mess. so i wont go into it.

if you put a knife to my throat and told me if i accepted a % salary tie to revenue (the key point in this issue) i wouldnt be killed and you would give me one concession, this is it.

since the owners want a partnership in this, the players should be able to demand "revenue certainty". why shouldnt there be demands on the owners to guarantee a certain level of revenue ? shouldnt the players be allowed to ask the owners to guarantee a certain level of revenue ?

1) this also means the players dont have to trust the owners figures, they can negotiate with a level of trust .. because:
2) if the owners arent able to generate growing revenues, they pay a penalty to the players.
3) the owners wont be so likely to hide revenue if there is strict enough penalties. hey, they want to make the players live with strict cost certainty, the players should be allowed to ask for similar levels of strictness on how much "revenue" the owners must delare. if the owners arent really hiding any, then they better get on their horses and figure out how to market the NHL. isnt this what they are earning the profit for ? isnt this their role in the industry ? if i am a player, i would be demanding them pull their weight.

this is the same as the owners asking the players to guarantee their luxury tax offer. the players are saying, fine guarantee the revenue doesnt go down.

if the players negotiate a starting point of a % of 2.1b and then demand it a trigger to get out of the contract in 2 or 3 years if revenue isnt up to 2.5b (a negotiated #)

also, if revenue does grow to 2.5b, since this is a partnership, the player % also rises as the revenue grows. this means all parties share in OUR money.

anyhow ... you might be able to convince me to support the owners concept of "cost certainty" if they agree to a similary strict demand of "revenue certainty" from the players.

look forward to thoughts from the other side.

dr

well, i thought it was a good idea and a major concession from this anti capper. anyhow, guess it made too much sense, so no one responded.

dr

 

[BLONG7]

most of you know my take on this mess. so i wont go into it.

if you put a knife to my throat and told me if i accepted a % salary tie to revenue (the key point in this issue) i wouldnt be killed and you would give me one concession, this is it.

since the owners want a partnership in this, the players should be able to demand "revenue certainty". why shouldnt there be demands on the owners to guarantee a certain level of revenue ? shouldnt the players be allowed to ask the owners to guarantee a certain level of revenue ?

1) this also means the players dont have to trust the owners figures, they can negotiate with a level of trust .. because:
2) if the owners arent able to generate growing revenues, they pay a penalty to the players.
3) the owners wont be so likely to hide revenue if there is strict enough penalties. hey, they want to make the players live with strict cost certainty, the players should be allowed to ask for similar levels of strictness on how much "revenue" the owners must delare. if the owners arent really hiding any, then they better get on their horses and figure out how to market the NHL. isnt this what they are earning the profit for ? isnt this their role in the industry ? if i am a player, i would be demanding them pull their weight.

this is the same as the owners asking the players to guarantee their luxury tax offer. the players are saying, fine guarantee the revenue doesnt go down.

if the players negotiate a starting point of a % of 2.1b and then demand it a trigger to get out of the contract in 2 or 3 years if revenue isnt up to 2.5b (a negotiated #)

also, if revenue does grow to 2.5b, since this is a partnership, the player % also rises as the revenue grows. this means all parties share in OUR money.

anyhow ... you might be able to convince me to support the owners concept of "cost certainty" if they agree to a similary strict demand of "revenue certainty" from the players.

look forward to thoughts from the other side.

dr

Very interesting...I think something like this is something that the two sides should be looking at...once they meet next week who knows, at least they will be in the same room, hopefully for more than a couple of hours!

 

[BLONG7]

well, i thought it was a good idea and a major concession from this anti capper. anyhow, guess it made too much sense, so no one responded.

dr

As far as no one responding, I remember once I responded to one of your posts, and just because we disagreed, you called me a liar... I didn't appreciate that... so most recently I have just blown off most of your anti-owner stances... don't get me wrong, I think these boards are for discussion and we all cannot agree, but we can agree to disagree without the name calling.

 

[Toonces]

It's an intresting concept, but I'm slightly worried as to what legnths the owners would go to generate revenue.

I'm not on the other "side", I resent both sides equally.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

As far as no one responding, I remember once I responded to one of your posts, and just because we disagreed, you called me a liar... I didn't appreciate that... so most recently I have just blown off most of your anti-owner stances... don't get me wrong, I think these boards are for discussion and we all cannot agree, but we can agree to disagree without the name calling.

you need to have thicker skin and not take things personally. i probably was using the word for context.

dr

 

[Bruwinz37]

you need to have thicker skin and not take things personally. i probably was using the word for context.

dr

No one responds because nothing is a discussion with you. Its your way or no way and I think I can speak for a lot of us who would rather not even bother discussing the issue with you any further.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

No one responds because nothing is a discussion with you. Its your way or no way and I think I can speak for a lot of us who would rather not even bother discussing the issue with you any further.

thats your loss then. i wont lose sleep over you not talking to me either.

dr

 

[I in the Eye]

most of you know my take on this mess. so i wont go into it.

if you put a knife to my throat and told me if i accepted a % salary tie to revenue (the key point in this issue) i wouldnt be killed and you would give me one concession, this is it.

since the owners want a partnership in this, the players should be able to demand "revenue certainty". why shouldnt there be demands on the owners to guarantee a certain level of revenue ? shouldnt the players be allowed to ask the owners to guarantee a certain level of revenue ?

1) this also means the players dont have to trust the owners figures, they can negotiate with a level of trust .. because:
2) if the owners arent able to generate growing revenues, they pay a penalty to the players.
3) the owners wont be so likely to hide revenue if there is strict enough penalties. hey, they want to make the players live with strict cost certainty, the players should be allowed to ask for similar levels of strictness on how much "revenue" the owners must delare. if the owners arent really hiding any, then they better get on their horses and figure out how to market the NHL. isnt this what they are earning the profit for ? isnt this their role in the industry ? if i am a player, i would be demanding them pull their weight.

this is the same as the owners asking the players to guarantee their luxury tax offer. the players are saying, fine guarantee the revenue doesnt go down.

if the players negotiate a starting point of a % of 2.1b and then demand it a trigger to get out of the contract in 2 or 3 years if revenue isnt up to 2.5b (a negotiated #)

also, if revenue does grow to 2.5b, since this is a partnership, the player % also rises as the revenue grows. this means all parties share in OUR money.

anyhow ... you might be able to convince me to support the owners concept of "cost certainty" if they agree to a similary strict demand of "revenue certainty" from the players.

look forward to thoughts from the other side.

dr

At first glance, I like it...

I'm all for 'sharing the risk'... IMO, if the players are going to accept tying a portion of their compensation to the revenue generated, then it's reasonable for the players to have a minimum revenue figure that they can count on (and plan their life around)...

If a team can't meet the revenue minimum, then perhaps money collected through a league revenue-sharing program goes first to paying commitments (i.e. existing player salaries)... The owner and GM also gets fined by the league for not being able to meet the minimum revenue requirement... If a team is consistently not able to meet minimum revenue requirements, this is going to **** off the other teams who have to keep bailing them out through the revenue-sharing program... and thus, this is going to also **** off Bettman... If a team is not able to generate a reasonable revenue minimum (as negotiated between the NHLPA and the NHL), then either (1) that team is in a poor market compared to league standards; or (2) the GM is doing a poor job running the business; or (3) a combination of 1 and 2... or (4) the negotiated revenue minimum was too high... However, if it's 4, then I would assume that at least 25% of the teams won't be able to meet the minimum... If it's only one or two teams who can't meet the minimum, then IMO, the negotiated revenue minimum wasn't too high...

I'm all for holding the GM and owner ultimately responsible for operating their team like a business... The actions of the GM (and the market conditions) are out of the players control... As such, if the players accept tying their salaries to revenue, then IMO, it is reasonable for the players to accept a guaranteed revenue minimum... Either have a guaranteed revenue minimum, or a say and vote in 'business decisions'... and I don't think that the second option would fly...

If a team can't meet the minimum, then IMO, it's reasonable for the league as a whole to pay for that team's existing salary commitments (through revenue-sharing), and have the team that can't meet the minimum pay hefty personal fines and answer to their peers and Bettman as to why the minimum could not be reached...

 

[YellHockey*]

It's an interesting twist.

Another twist the players could put on it is if an owner doesn't meet the revenue standards, he has to sell his team or the league will revoke the franchise.

And lets use the revenues that were defined by the Levitt report. If a team can't produce within 1 or 2 standard deviations of the mean revenue, they lose their franchise. That would really show the integrity of the Levitt report.

Why should someone like Bill Wirtz, who refuses to sell tv rights for home games on the dinosaur like belief that it would cost him significantly more at the gate, be allowed to cost the players millions?

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Why should someone like Bill Wirtz, who refuses to sell tv rights for home games on the dinosaur like belief that it would cost him significantly more at the gate, be allowed to cost the players millions?

Good point. Why should teams be allowed to charge half as much to see the same game in a different city? Shouldn't the players also be negotiating a minimum ticket price? Isn't Bettman promising ticket prices will fall? How can the players allow the owners to unilaterally cut revenues?

Tom

 

[dedalus]

It is an interesting idea. Problem is of course that the NHLPA refuses to negotiate in good faith on the issue of a cap. They won't have it. If they'd allow it on the table, something like this might be negotiated. As things stand though, the players will continue to murder the season through their folly.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

It is an interesting idea. Problem is of course that the NHLPA refuses to negotiate in good faith on the issue of a cap. They won't have it. If they'd allow it on the table, something like this might be negotiated. As things stand though, the players will continue to murder the season through their folly.

wouldd your opinion of who is murdering the season change if the players accepted the owners cost certainty in exchange for strict revenue certainty ?

dr

 

[dedalus]

wouldd your opinion of who is murdering the season change if the players accepted the owners cost certainty in exchange for strict revenue certainty ?

dr

That's an unknown; it's dependent on the terms. What IS known is that the NHLPA has stated it won't negotiate ANY CBA that involves a cap - revenue certainty or not. Until they are willing to negotiate SOME kind of cap, everything else is pointless chatter.

As I said, your proposal is an intersting one with merits, but the playsers themselves would reject it out of hand, so why bother even discussing the owners?

 

[chriss_co]

Just wondering... but isn't the nature of business to make the most money? ie. increase revenue as much as possible to make as much profit as possible???

So... you're basically saying the players should go for a claus guaranteeing revenue because you think owners are going to act spitefully against players by decreasing their revenues just so that they can decrease player salaries?!?!!

If there is a tie between salaries and revenues, the only way owners can make more money is to increase revenues.

I think the fact that we live in a somewhat free market is the guarantee that owners will try to increase revenue as much as possible.

It is my opinion that you have a very negative view on owners as greedy wealthy business men who don't want to fork out fair dough for a fair product. This negotiation isn't about business men not making enough money. Its about business men not making money (collectively speaking) and wanting to secure a system that secures their operations.

 

[wint]

So... you're basically saying the players should go for a claus guaranteeing revenue because you think owners are going to act spitefully against players by decreasing their revenues just so that they can decrease player salaries?!?!!

If there is a tie between salaries and revenues, the only way owners can make more money is to increase revenues.

...or to underrepresent the revenues upon which any form of cost certainty would be based. The PA has good reason to question the accounting practices of the owners, and no reason to allow the players' salaries to be determined by back room bookkeeping.

 

[Pepper]

It sure would help PA's credibility a lot if they would actually go through the books before criticizing them...

 

[YellHockey*]

Just wondering... but isn't the nature of business to make the most money? ie. increase revenue as much as possible to make as much profit as possible???

So... you're basically saying the players should go for a claus guaranteeing revenue because you think owners are going to act spitefully against players by decreasing their revenues just so that they can decrease player salaries?!?!!

No. They would want that because owners could HIDE their revenues just so they can decrease player salaries.

If there is a tie between salaries and revenues, the only way owners can make more money is to increase revenues.

Or they can hide significant revenues and watch the players share of the total revenues drop.

I think the fact that we live in a somewhat free market is the guarantee that owners will try to increase revenue as much as possible.

We might but the players won't if the owners get their way.

It is my opinion that you have a very negative view on owners as greedy wealthy business men who don't want to fork out fair dough for a fair product. This negotiation isn't about business men not making enough money. Its about business men not making money (collectively speaking) and wanting to secure a system that secures their operations.

If they want to make money collectively speaking then they should share all revenues collectively speaking. If everyone gets the same share of the revenue pie, wouldn't the only ones losing money be the ones who should lose money?

 

[YellHockey*]

Oh, and to add on to my earlier thought about forcing the owners who don't generate enough revenue out of the sport.

How about the owner with the lowest revenue is forced to sell after each season. That'll make sure they all report as much of their revenue as possible. Make the owners compete with each other to stay in the league.

 

[Scheme]

How about the owner with the lowest revenue is forced to sell after each season. That'll make sure they all report as much of their revenue as possible. Make the owners compete with each other to stay in the league.

Great, so after 28 seasons we'll be left with two teams? I don't think the players would want that.

 

[YellHockey*]

Great, so after 28 seasons we'll be left with two teams? I don't think the players would want that.

Did I say fold the teams?

No, I said SELL the teams.

If the team cannot be sold, the franchise is revoked and an expansion franchise granted to the best bidder.

 

[thinkwild]

Just because an owners is forced to sell his team, an a weakened position, on the market, doesnt mean the team will fold. There has always been buyers out there.

I like the line of thinking dr. A similar type of thing would be revenue bonuses. The players hold back a certain percentage of money. If the owners meet certain attendance, revenue, and profit levels, ensuring league health, the players will reward them with performance bonuses.

But I dont see why the owners need or deserve cost certainty. Certainly not without the real books. I can see why they want it. And i can see they will spend the next century positioning and fighting for it. But nows not the time. Get a $17bil TV contract and the players will talk.

I want to hear a good case why they do and what exactly they are fixing and how they forsee it unfolding. If they make that case, I can see negotiating a link. Bettman says he can make it, well make it. Everyone's listening. Otherwise, blood you will have.

Its obvious the owners have to give in on this request. They arent going to get cost certainty. Clever try, yes they have the ability to make a long term unpleasent weakened position for the players that could eventually leave you thumping your chest. But at what cost. Only a slime would try it.

Give in to players framework Bettman. You know its the right thing to do.

 

[Orange]

How about the owner with the lowest revenue is forced to sell after each season. That'll make sure they all report as much of their revenue as possible. Make the owners compete with each other to stay in the league.

Yikes ! That would greatly lower the value of all franchises if every year an owner was forced to sell ! I mean, who would buy in if there was a very non probable chance of being forced to sell in the not so distant future ! You'd make NHL teams an even worst investement than they already are ...

 

[thinkwild]

Not necessarily. By Ottawas old owner, Bryden going bankrupt, in the same way restaurant owners do every day, a new owner got the team at a reduced rate, and was now in a stronger position. The old owner going bankrupt was good for the team, the fans, and the health of the game. The league became stronger.

The best interests of the owners, is not the same thing as the best interests of the game.

 

[Orange]

Some changes are good. Not all changes are good. Too much changes creates instability. Instability lowers value. My point : Forcing an owner to sell every year will create instability rather than spawn good changes. Ottawa is the exception rahter than the rule. You can't generalize.