JWI19 said:
Absolutely, which is why the PA should come back with an offer next week of 100% revenue sharing with a cap at whatever 1\30 of league revenue is each year. It would definitely divide the owners.
Does This Shed Any Light on the NHL's Revenue Sharing Plans?
- Thread starter GabbyDugan
- Start date
- Status
Absolutely, which is why the PA should come back with an offer next week of 100% revenue sharing with a cap at whatever 1\30 of league revenue is each year. It would definitely divide the owners.
Wetcoaster said:
In the NFL and NBA most defniitley it is up for discussion and negotiation on the players part. They bought into tying salaries to revenues and as such have at least some minor risk and as such have the right to discuss those other things.
Quite honestly if the players don't want to commit to the "company" on the revenue/expenses side and assume some risk they have no business talking about revenue sharing with the owners. On the owners side they have basically thrown the union a bone...commit to tying salaries to revenues and you can have a major say in how the league is financially run.
Apparently you are missing the whole point of this lockout. The reason there is no hockey this year is because the owners claim that they need a new CBA in order to ensure the survival of the league. Therefore, any aspect of the CBA that deals with the survival of the league is in fact, ESSENTIAL. Revenue sharing is ESSENTIAL to the survival of the league, is it not? Can Nashville survive without revenue sharing? Pittsburgh? Calgary?
Besides, legal facts have little to do with sports CBA’s. What would happen if the union went to court and said all players should be UFA’s at the age of 18? I mean, how many other industries “own†their employees until they are 31?
Right. These same owners who brought the league to where it is now. These same owners who claim that they cannot police themselves. These same owners who insist a luxury tax won’t work, because it will not stop them from spending liking drunken sailors. These same owners who have proposed a revenue sharing plan that does not, in fact, share any revenue. How, pray-tell, does the proposed revenue sharing plan make the system work? Do you honestly believe the owners have a “secret,†more small-market beneficial revenue sharing plan worked out amongst themselves?? The owners have tried to grow the revenue in small markets, and failed, and apparently they have no plans to re-distribute the money through revenue sharing. Which was the whole point of this thread. The proposed revenue sharing plan, does not, in fact, share any revenue.
Why do the owners need the players to set salaries at a reasonable percentage of overall league revenue. Isn’t that power entirely in the owners hands? Isn’t it that very power that drove certain owners mad? If the owners could make the system work, we wouldn’t be in this lockout. But they can’t. They admit it. They need the CBA, that essential CBA, to set out strict guidelines that they all MUST follow. Otherwise, the whole system collapses. What happens if Toronto refuses to negotiate with their fellow owners, and says we are going to keep all profits to ourselves? Does Jeremy Jacobs sound like a guy willing to prop up those hosers in Edmonton? Is Bill Wirtz such a sweet guy that he would gladly give money to those honkey-tonks in Nashville? Is Mike Illitch such a kind-hearted soul that he would gladly give some of his money to his fellow billionaire and good friend Peter Karmonos? Of course not. They would rather spit on their own mothers. So what does the league do then? The whole revenue sharing thing collapses, and the small market teams go under, without or without a salary cap. It has to be entrenched in the CBA, otherwise it won’t get done.
Source?
Without the million dollar gag order, how much grumbling from “league sources†would we be hearing? Stephen Brunt of the Globe and Mail said, and Pierre McGuire agreed with him, that up to 15 owners would probably accept a luxury tax system. Is that a “vast majority?â€
Why did the small market Montreal Expos accept the last Major League Baseball agreement, even though they knew it would be the death of them? Because they lost out to their more powerful big-market cousins. Under the NHL’s proposed revenue sharing plan, who stands to gain the most? Is it Edmonton? Nashville? Pittsburgh? Doesn’t look like it. For all we know, these guys are hollering as loud as they can behind the scenes, trying to get a stronger deal for themselves, but are losing out to the big boys in the league, who currently enjoy the support of people like you.
With that gag order in place, we do not know how the owners really feel. If the NHLPA fined players a million bucks for speaking out, I’m sure the union would look a lot more united as well. So since we can’t know the “truth†all we can do is look at the details of proposed plans, and make our own decisions. And in my mind, the proposed revenue sharing plan does nothing for the small market teams, and may in fact hurt them.
Can you tell me how the revenue sharing plan, as we know it, is going to help Nashville, Edmonton and Pittsburgh?
The NHLPA wants what all unions want – more jobs, and more pay. Without revenue sharing, the small markets will go under, meaning NHLPA jobs will be lost. Can ou deny that? Therefore, it is very much “their business.â€
Double-Shift Lasse
Just post better
I've been reading these boards for more than a year and have always considered myself a casual reader rather than someone who'd become an active participant. And while I've probably bitten off more than I can chew by tackling this issue with my first post, this thread compelled me to respond.
I first wanted to thank all of you for managing to have a discussion regarding the league's finances, the CBA (non)-negotiations and the league's financial future without it deteriorating into a bunch of folks from Calgary and Edmonton bemoaning the inability of their team to compete financially and blaming it alternately on big-market teams that pay zillions of dollars to stockpile the best players and "non-hockey" U.S. markets like Carolina and Florida, followed by a bunch of folks from TO and Philly telling them to bugger off, we make our money, why can't we spend it, it's not our fault you live in a frontier village.
It's clear that both sides are torn by competing interests within their own ranks. My sense thus far is that the NHLPA is more interested in protecting high-end earners than grinders. Whether this is right or not is open to debate. I also know that owners, large-market or small, most likely do not want to be punished for being successful. It's a complicated issue that many fans have taken quick and firm sides on. It's nice to see some creative thinking on the subject.
I first wanted to thank all of you for managing to have a discussion regarding the league's finances, the CBA (non)-negotiations and the league's financial future without it deteriorating into a bunch of folks from Calgary and Edmonton bemoaning the inability of their team to compete financially and blaming it alternately on big-market teams that pay zillions of dollars to stockpile the best players and "non-hockey" U.S. markets like Carolina and Florida, followed by a bunch of folks from TO and Philly telling them to bugger off, we make our money, why can't we spend it, it's not our fault you live in a frontier village.
It's clear that both sides are torn by competing interests within their own ranks. My sense thus far is that the NHLPA is more interested in protecting high-end earners than grinders. Whether this is right or not is open to debate. I also know that owners, large-market or small, most likely do not want to be punished for being successful. It's a complicated issue that many fans have taken quick and firm sides on. It's nice to see some creative thinking on the subject.
JohnnyReb said:
Apparently you are missing the fact that the owners in the small markets are willing to take the gamble that they can grow their markets and get a national TV deal that would make real revenue sharing a reality.
With player cost set at a reasonable share of revenues, all markets can survive.
Age of free agency IS an essential part of a CBA and must be negotiated.
Revenue sharing is NOT and essential part of a CBA and can be unilaterally changed at any time by the owners.
Sorry if these legal facts are inconvenient for your position.
Impressive rant. Feel better?
The owners can manage their businesses once players salaries are under control.
Now you can predict the future as well. Impressive. I'm willing to believe that the owners would rather share some revenues than have their franchise value drop with teams folding. You want to believe otherwise, knock yourself out.
Well now we know the "truth" because Steven Brunt has made it known.
Nope.
We do know that the owners of the small markets are supportive enough of the plan to not speak out against it. If they really felt this would kill their business, do you think they'd be stopped by a fine?
The NHLPA has made it clear that they are not concerned with job security.
Some PA members have made it clear they support contraction.
The PA is concerned about $'s.
Revenue sharing is none of their business. It is up to the owners to make there business work once their major cost is under control.
There is no garauntee that small market teams will go under without sharing of regional revenues. The league does need to improve national revenues through TV/Radio which will of course be shared.
Are they willing to gamble? Where is this “fact†written? You are speculating. Hoping perhaps. Grow their markets? National TV deals? They’ve had a decade to get this done, and failed miserably. Yet its supposed to get done within the next couple of years, which would then allow “real†revenue sharing? Where is this “real†revenue sharing you speak of? The original point of this thread, which you keep avoiding, is that there is no “real†revenue sharing. You are basing your whole argument on “well, the owners will probably ignore the revenue sharing plan they build into the CBA, and come up with their own, more equitable and small market beneficial revenue sharing plan.â€
If revenue sharing is no business of the players, why did the owners include it in THEIR proposal?? Do you really, really think they are going to change this scheme if it is accepted by the players??
How is one a “legal†fact, but the other not? Care to clarify? Typing the word “legal†does not make it so. If I had to guess, with the exception of the military and perhaps doctors, there is no law in any other industry that FORBIDS a worker from going to work for another company, essentially until they are 31. Is that “legal?†So why is free agency essential to the CBA – from a LEGAL standpoint – but revenue sharing not? Legally speaking?
Much, thank you.
Not the issue. Not the issue at all. No one denies player salaries are out of control. Not even the players themselves. What IS at issue in this thread, which you keep glossing over, is that the OWNERS proposed a system that would NOT benefit the smaller market clubs, EVEN with salary controls.
Tell me, oh wise one, the Nashville Predators, with a payroll in the low 20s, lost money. Now, with this great CBA that is supposed to save small market franchises just like them, they are obliged to RAISE their player salaries by close to $10 million (minimum payroll of $34 million, as proposed by Gary Bettman), PAY an additional, unknown amount into the revenue sharing plan (sharing of playoff revenue), AND receive NOTHING in return (because they didn’t sell 80% of their tickets)?? How in the world are they going to make money like that?? Right off the bat they are going to be losing over $10 million, perhaps over $15 million, and yet you expect them to “grow†that back within the next couple of years?? Explain the logic in that to me, please…
I would have thought so too, but according to these articles, they are not. How do you explain that? Oh right, the “secret†revenue sharing plan they have worked out amongst themselves…
You said the owners appear unified. At least to some, they are not.
How do you know they aren’t speaking out against it, behind boardroom doors?
As I said before, all we can do is look at the details for ourselves, and make our own decisions. Based on the articles posted – point of this thread, after all – it appears to me that the small markets are getting screwed. You say otherwise, because, well, you believe in some “secret†revenue sharing plan. I’m not a big fan of conspiracies, myself, especially when there doesn’t appear to be any reason to keep such a thing secret. Don’t you think the NHL would look so much better if they said “look, with our revenue sharing plan, Edmonton, Nashville and Pittsburgh would receive $10 million per year in extra revenue, here are the numbers?†How could that possibly hurt them?? Why would they need to keep that secret??
I believe the truth has more to do with hard-line, big market teams like Boston and Chicago dictating the terms of this lockout, while small market teams in the background scramble to push the agenda more in their favour. I don’t believe all 30 teams are unified in this. The interests of the New York Rangers are not the same as the interests of the Calgary Flames, and you’d be naïve to believe otherwise. I DO believe that the small market teams needed this lockout to try and get a better system, which is probably why they are publicly supporting it. It gives them time to work behind the scenes on getting a deal done. That’s what the small market baseball teams did, during the strike in ’94, though ultimately they lost out.
How do you figure? Makes for a nice sentence, but where is the evidence? What, specifically, to you says “bah, cut 300 jobs, we don’t care?â€
There are over 700 members in the union. Get 700 people together, and you’d be amazed at what some of them support. What is your point? If you said to those members “would you continue to support contraction if it meant that you lose your job, without a doubt?†how many would continue to support it?
As are the owners. Point?
As demonstrated above, what the OWNERS proposed would not get their major costs under control enough for some teams. With no additional revenue streams, Nashville cannot increase their payroll by $10 million – as the OWNERS proposal said they must – and expect to remain a viable franchise. It does not help them, and they will go under, taking 20-30 union jobs with them. Can you deny that? If what the owners proposed is accepted, will the Nashville Predators make money next year? The year after? The year after that? How long will it take for them to “grow their revenue†before they start being profitable? 3 years? 5 years? 10 years? If they are losing $10-15 million per year, as it appears they would under this proposed CBA, how long can they wait??
It may be up to the owners to make their business work, but its up to the union to ensure their workers are employed. With the business model the OWNERS proposed, several hundred of them may be out of work. How you can say this not the union’s concern is beyond me.
So explain how the Nashville Predators are going to make money next year, with the proposed revenue sharing plan? After a year with no hockey, are people in Nashville going to realize just how much they missed it, and flock to the arena by the hundreds of thousands? Or is it more likely that Nashville’s revenues will DECREASE, even though their player costs – their major cost – is FORCED to INCREASE? How is this going to ensure their survival? Is this new math?
JohnnyReb said:
I think, besides the $1 million fine for speaking out, the main reason teams like Detroit, Toronto and New York have gone along with this is because they won't have to share revenue.
mudcrutch79 said:
The Sherman Anti-Trust Act (and case law) in the US and the Compettion Act in Canada. It is not prohibited so it is allowed.
Thunderstruck said:
Unbelievably, this could be so. The NHL owners could still be chasing that elusive big money US TV deal. Several years ago, I wrote a supposedly humorous column that that had Dogbert (of Dilbert fame) acting as a consultant for the NHL. The advice the cynical dog gave NHL owners came down to this:
1) The problem was that the league was too fair to get a big national TV deal. Without good teams in New York, Chicago or Los Angeles there is zero hope for a big TV deal. Ratings will always suck unless you draw eyeballs in the big media markets.
2) Even though there are huge payroll disparities, late free agency protects the small markets and gives everybody a more or less equal chance to build a great team. Unfortunately there are many small to mid market teams and only a handful of giants. Unless the big market teams can buy something good with their money it does them no good. If everybody has a more or less equal chance, Ottawa and Tampa and Vancouver could end up with the teams that dominate the next decade and where would the NHL be then?
3) Not only could the wrong teams get really good, the wrong teams in hockey will stay really good for a long time because cores stay intact for a long time. No big TV deal or National US footprint if Vancouver plays Ottawa for the SCF.
What's the solution?
First, demarket the league by playing up the payroll disparities and convince the fans that the existing system is terribly unfair to small market teams.
Second, create a system that includes an illusion of fairness - eliminate the unimportant payroll disparities with tight salary controls and allow early free agency. The result will be a system that appears fair while the biggest stars gravitate to the biggest markets where they can best capitalise on their fame.
Third, make it easy for everyone to sell their team as a potential winner by turning rosters over quickly. The ideal situation is if the big markets have an advantage, but not an overwhelming one. There may be 25 mid to small market teams and 5 large market teams. Thus in a fair league, the odds favour small markets. It would be perfect if, in any given year, two or three of the large market teams are in the hunt with two or three of the small market teams.
Give the big markets a 50/50 chance to be elite in a given year, and all the small market teams a 15/85 chance to be elite. Call it the NBA competitive balance plan.
As I said earlier, when I originally wrote the piece I was mostly joking. Now? It is check, check, check. Done and done. I think the Gary Bettman system is designed to do exactly this. The most convincing evidence? Stan Kasten of the Atlanta Thrashers:
Let's face it, hockey does not have a high profile right now. The top cadre of players aren't well known enough. What can we do for a TV contract? Increase our appeal. The league won't like me saying this, but Jarome Iginla, Martin St. Louis, Rick Nash - these players have to be in (bigger markets). Your best and brightest young players have to be in your biggest media markets to give us a fighting chance."
Dogbert couldn't have said it better.
Which is better for the Oilers? Have a 1 in 6 chance they will emerge as an elite team and dominate a Mickey Mouse league with no real US big money TV presence? Or have a system where no team is truly elite and they can pretend they have an equal chance in a league that is major league in the US? A big frog in a small pond or just a frog in the vast US market?
For the fans, the former is best for the Oilers. But for the owners? Did they hire Dogbert?
Tom
Double-Shift Lassés said:
I'm responding to this post mostly because I hoped to revive this thread. I'm hoping someone can tell me I am wrong and that an incredibly cynical view of the Bettman strategy is outlandish. Is it possible that this entire dance is "Help the big markets, screw the small ones. Sell it by pretending we are broke and we have to do something to help small markets. Stupid cluck fans will buy anything."
Anyway, I do think this is an interesting topic, too. I think the answer to this question is no. The high end earners are the biggest losers in this dispute. Most of them are over 30. They are giving up the most. Chris Chelios is probably giving up the last year of his career. If Trevor Linden loses $2 million this year, he can't get it back.
Does this mean the NHLPA is mostly protecting the grinders? No. The grinders and role players mostly have very short careers at fairly low salaries anyway. Most don't even even qualify for a pension.
The NHLPA is most interested in protecting the future high end earners. If Chris Chelios is the biggest loser in the dispute, the biggest winners (absent a Gary Bettman designed NHL) will be the likes of Sidney Crosby and Ilya Kovalchuk and Marion Gaborik. The players who are very rich today are as rich as they are because players like Mario and Wayne refused to give in 1994.
Tom
Double-Shift Lasse
Just post better
Tom —
You're right about future high-end earners, and that's really what I meant. The PA wants to protect the potential for high-end contracts. To your main point, it's been suggested on these boards that the NHL hasn't reached the level of interest it had in the states a decade ago when the Rangers won the Cup precisely because it was the Rangers. It's possible, as frightening as that is, if you gauge interest in terms of media coverage. But TV is the media, of course. In which case, Bettman, in his desire to secure a big-time TV deal, could be attempting to skew things to the larger markets. I wouldn't put it past him.
You're right about future high-end earners, and that's really what I meant. The PA wants to protect the potential for high-end contracts. To your main point, it's been suggested on these boards that the NHL hasn't reached the level of interest it had in the states a decade ago when the Rangers won the Cup precisely because it was the Rangers. It's possible, as frightening as that is, if you gauge interest in terms of media coverage. But TV is the media, of course. In which case, Bettman, in his desire to secure a big-time TV deal, could be attempting to skew things to the larger markets. I wouldn't put it past him.
If you are representing the players, you realize that it is always in the best interest of your clients (all of them) to have a system based on free market principles vs. an artificial (and perhaps randomly set) barrier. In this case, the barrier/cap is set at the lowest common denominator. Players can only earn what the lowest revenue teams in the league can afford. [I won’t get into the whole “what is the true revenue anyway†argument…that is another thread with the Russ Conway review of the Levitt report.]
Thus the NHLPA should be opposed to a cap. It recognizes that the players are being asked to bear the brunt of the redistribution of money that needs to happen to salvage the current NHL. The owners do not want to redistribute their money since the fact that they have money is usually due to several factors: good location, good marketing, and good operational management. There is no other source of significant money, yet the league finds itself in need of revenue redistribution. So it comes from the players side or it comes from the owners’ side. Since the owners can call the final shot here, it is going to come from the player side.
I do not believe the NHLPA is selling out the grinders. It flows downhill, and the star players will always be taken care of first. The gap between the top and bottom may shrink, but this is not about selling out grinders.
From the perspective of what is in the best interest of the NHL- as an entertainment entity –I said above that it can never have significant “other†revenue without great teams in the key markets. The NHL really has no choice here if it ever hopes to get significant revenue from a third source.
Thus the NHLPA should be opposed to a cap. It recognizes that the players are being asked to bear the brunt of the redistribution of money that needs to happen to salvage the current NHL. The owners do not want to redistribute their money since the fact that they have money is usually due to several factors: good location, good marketing, and good operational management. There is no other source of significant money, yet the league finds itself in need of revenue redistribution. So it comes from the players side or it comes from the owners’ side. Since the owners can call the final shot here, it is going to come from the player side.
I do not believe the NHLPA is selling out the grinders. It flows downhill, and the star players will always be taken care of first. The gap between the top and bottom may shrink, but this is not about selling out grinders.
From the perspective of what is in the best interest of the NHL- as an entertainment entity –I said above that it can never have significant “other†revenue without great teams in the key markets. The NHL really has no choice here if it ever hopes to get significant revenue from a third source.
Tom_Benjamin said:
LOL, i remember that post at fanhome. Life immitating art. Doesnt seem so funny anymore. Exactly what are the problems that need to be solved. Maybe im just dense, but im not exactly sure. What does it say when the owners own revenue models dhow Edmonton doesnt qualify to receive money, and Nashville and Pittsburgh will be penalized from it.
--
you got great style JohnnyReb.
snafu said:
Sigh. As I've said many times, the best thing for the business of the sport is lousy for the fan and lousy for the game.
If indeed this is the case, two things are very clear:
1) The dishonesty in the NHL position is absolutely staggering. They are doing this for exactly the opposite of the reasons they are pretending to do it. They think fans are chumps and reading most of the posts in here merely confirms it.
2) The players are being given a very clear choice. Either they decertify and risk killing a third of the league (and 250 jobs) or they accept pegging salaries to a level that is affordable to the weakest markets in the league.
I think their best option is decertification. That gives the NHL what they want - the best teams in the biggest markets - but with salary levels pegged to the budgets of the biggest markets.
I don't follow European football but I think the players are better off in that type of system than the Gary Bettman designed league.
Tom
Tom_Benjamin said:
If there ends up being a cap, I so hope the PA decertifies. Peter Karmanos will be begging for a luxury tax, at least until he folds.
Tom_Benjamin said:
I am not an expert on the European soccer leagues either, but know enough that they do solve the problem of giving professional teams to most cities…albeit in a tiered league. I doubt the Oiler and Flames fans on this site would be happy with a situation where they never had a shot at the Cup, but financially it does get rid of the staggering revenue gap.
Why would the NHL need a PR firm to promote their position as to how staggering their collective losses were? If they were truly staggering, it would be easy to prove definitively! Why does Bettman call the Levitt Report an audit? A simple review of attendance figures, where Columbus outranks Chicago (!!!), should convince anyone that the public face Bettman is showing is not the one seen in private. As many of you have discussed here, and in other threads, Canada ends up subsidizing US markets in net terms under some of the proposed revenue sharing schemes.
Back to attendance figures for a moment…and also a working assumption. If Bettman is committed to gaining a substantial TV contract, he needs great teams in Chicago, Boston, New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, LA….Dallas, Atlanta…and the gravy would be the Colorados, Detroits, and Tampas. The fact that several of the first tier of teams is in significant decline in attendance, and that Chicago even lacks a local TV contract should be enough to worry any commissioner- IF he is committed to getting that contract. [I think he is, however.]
I guess I asked myself this question. If this were truly about saving small market teams, in general, and small market Canadian teams in particular, wouldn’t the stance have to be different? Currency equalization that was meaningful would go a very, very long way to helping the Canadian teams out. Recall when the Canadian $ was trading under 0.7 to the USD for 3+ years or so! Furthermore, if this were solely about small markets, the revenue sharing that is proposed would have to be different….it also would help to not have a floor for salaries….but maybe they just knew they could never get away with a cap and and no floor? The floor would force the likes of Wirtz to pay at a level a Chicago-based team could afford.
So as you said, the players are truly in a tough spot. Either be responsible for the loss of 6 teams or accept the cap.
I imagine the same question is applied to the owners too. Be responsible for the loss of 6 teams. Must be some intriguing infighting going on over that issue. Talking about the revenue sharing plans really focuses attention on the owners internal divisions.
snafu said:
Yes sir, it would. I think they are interested in saving small market teams, they just don't want to be the ones who do the saving.
thinkwild said:
Which is why before next Friday, the players need to propose a system that includes a cap at 1\30th league revenue and 100% revenue sharing. Call their bluff.
I in the Eye
Drop a ball it falls
- Dec 14, 2002
- 6,371
- 2,327
snafu said:
IMO, Bettman has played this game brilliantly so far... He may have the players backed into a corner... and the majority of us fans are on his side...
And then I remind myself that true evil disguises itself in innocence... Bettman is starting to remind me of Kaiser Soze...
I always hated a hard cap... and I hate even more the owner's proposal after considering the points in this thread... This better just be posturing
I in the Eye said:
Interesting analogy to an underground criminal myth! I kind of liked comparing to him to Napoleon...on the good days.
Yes, I never could buy into this "the players are all evil and greedy" thing, when I know that Karmanos exists and that Fedorov's contract seemingly started it all. It was a tad bit simplistic. Bettman has played his strategy quite well. However I am disappointed for the game. It has taken some of the focus off the other ailments- bigger and perhaps harder to fix - for a critical amount of time. If we us MLB as an example, can hockey recover when baseball perhaps still has not?
I also dislike that the Canadian market is being used as the excuse. These fans do have some legitimate issues and I understand their love for the game. I think there is a scenario where the NHL wins in the US, and uses those 'winnings' to help out the small market Canadian teams...for heritage's sake if nothing else.
I in the Eye said:
Wasn't it Shakespeare who said that the Devil can quote scripture to serve his ends? If I wasn't afraid to be called for Godwin's law, I'd say he'd lifted his technique straight from Joseph Goebbels. Goebbels of course was a proponent of the Big Lie.
Fritz Kippler, a filmmaker who was one of Goebbels' most effective propagandists, once said that two steps were necessary to promote a Big Lie so the majority of the people in a nation would believe it. The first was to reduce an issue to a simple black-and-white choice that "even the most feebleminded could understand." The second was to repeat the oversimplification over and over. If these two steps were followed, people would always come to believe the Big Lie.
To be fair to Bettman (and skirt Godwin's Law) he didn't lift the technique from Goebbels, he lifted it from Madison Avenue, who lifted it from Goebbels.
snafu said:
Well, this idea is interesting me more and more. If it was an open system with relegation, it might work, although I agree it would be hard to sell.
If decertification happened, the lockout is broken. This season would be played under existing contracts. Some teams might give up the ghost immediately and sell the contracts of players to recover something out of their franchise, but most would probably give it a try.
The league would be able to gradually re-organise as the competitive balance began to break down. Suppose it was structured with the 12 team divisions, inviting anyone interested to supply the last six teams in tier three. All they have to do is put in an application and go for it.
The schedule would not be limited to games within the divisions. I'm not going to take time to sort it out but Tier I teams play some games with Tier II teams, and Tier II teams play some games with Tier III teams.
The top eight teams in Tier I, the top six teams in Tier II and the top two teams in Tier III make the Stanley Cup playoffs. A consolation trophy of some sort is won as the result of by the winner of a two round series that includes the number 7 and 8 seed in Tier II and seeds 3 to 8 of Tier III. Thus the top 8 teams in each Division make a playoff.
All non-playoff teams would be relegated. All existing revenue sharing stays in place so even Tier III teams get a piece of TV contracts even though Toronto and big American markets are the only ones the American network broadcasts.
Would that be bad? How bad? It would sure add spice to all the regular season races. It would give the teams that finished 1-2 in Tier I the laugher they deserve in the opening round of the playoffs. (Sort of like when number one played number 16 in the 21 team NHL.) The playoff races would be desperate races for non-relegation.
I think I like it better than the Bettman plan.
Tom
Tom_Benjamin said:
Now you’ve done it- an entirely different can of worms. Franchise value. I wonder if the owner that bought an “NHL teamâ€, implied therein is that everyone is a Tier I team, would view his investment as desirable if he now had a Tier III team? Would you have 3 levels of franchise fees even if the TV revenues were shared and the gate receipts, etc., associated with your operation were all still yours? Would you vote for this if you were the owner in one of the weaker places?
The tiered system would be perhaps the most logical solution put forth yet to solving the revenue gap inherent in the NHL right now. The NFL model has the mega-contract that allowed them to solve the same problem differently. Since we are in no danger of seeing that in the NHL…this could be the other path to take.
From an entertainment and competition perspective, concentrating the stars in Tier I teams would be great! I think we would have to shorter playoff rounds though, say a best of 5 for the laugher series…why make it more painful than it needs to be…then ratchet up as we go along.
I think what really has taken over is a reactionary mindset. The NHL is reacting, fixing problems as they come up. Once, there was a vision, but its premise was flawed, no one wants to acknowledge that, and so we patch it up. Those mistakes were worth hundreds of millions of dollars, so who wants to own up to that?
At the end of the day, the only people backing this would be the ones who are in the potential Tier 1 cities. It would take a plot of Machiavellian genius to sell it to everyone else!
snafu said:
No, but that's one of the attractions to the players. It really sticks it to the owners. I don't have any doubt there would be different franchise values but there are vastly different franchise values now. Anybody knew coming into the league is a Tier III team and they would be cheap.
By people do you mean fans? I guess so, but I think we'd get used to it. Tier II wouldn't be that bad either. But if the players decertify, what other choice is there? Would Winnipeg fans prefer Tier III NHL or the AHL? Would Edmonton fans prefer Tier II or nothing?
There's a lot not to like about it, but it is hard for me to think of a worse set of plans than Bettman's vision. That's at least partly because I don't want to see him get away with it.
Tom
Interesting read.
Here's hoping the players do decertify and get the rude awakening they have in store.
Are we sure that existing contracts would be valid if the PA decertifies?
Here's hoping the players do decertify and get the rude awakening they have in store.
Are we sure that existing contracts would be valid if the PA decertifies?
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
Kotkaniemi finishes the season with 27 points in 79 games.- Latest: Arthur Morgan
Upcoming events
-
Pinguins Bremerhaven @ Eisbaren Berlin - Pinguins Bremerhaven leads series 1-0Event closes- Updated:
-
-
2024 SoFi NBA Play-In Tournament Chicago Bulls @ Miami HeatWagers: 1Staked: $10.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
