Is Revenue Sharing the real battle?

[tantalum]

He also said that local revenues stayed local.

And the NFL can change that revenue sharing formula at any time...without union approval. Why? because the revenue sharing model does not change the global revenue pool and the players are guaranteed a percentage of that global revenue pool. That percentage is the only concern for the PA. The only place revenue sharing enters into it from the PA side is by guaranteeing the number of teams and jobs (i.e. enough revenue sharing to make the 30 NHL teams healthy which is what the league has already offered).

 

[hockeydadx2*]

So when are the owners going to share a ton of revenue ??? ... and then agree to give 65.5% of revenues to the players ala the NFL ???

Agreed the dollars are different, and the size and scope are different. What I want the owners to do is to change their attitude about sharing. It's not "propping up the losers", which is what many of the big-team folks think of it. Teams like Pgh overall do a damned good job financially given their very limited resources and having to overcome the mistakes made by Howard Baldwin personally, but right now the **** is hitting the fan everywhere and a little help would go a long way. It should be viewed that revenue sharing is helping grow the entire entity, which is what it is. It is not welfare, but rather, investment.

Agreed, there is not much to be shared right now, but if they do their jobs properly, get a handle on costs, raise interest by either changing rules or using the existing rules properly, then maybe the television contracts come back and things start taking off. For sure, if the public just sees franchise after franchise declaring bankruptcy, nothing is going to improve. The league must look viable.

 

[I in the Eye]

"Give and take" or "negotiation" is not a loophole. A loophole is a trick where you don't actually live up to what you agreed to. IE, if you agree that you can't get more than 60% in salary, but you end up doing so, then you didn't "give" in your negotiation. Or, if you agree to share 55% of revenue, but don't report all the revenue because of some tricky wording. You've circumvented the process.

It's absolutely paramount that none of this is allowed to happen.

With regards to salary, do you want the CBA to simply say "under any and all circumstances (both foreseen and unforeseen) players will not get more than 60% in salary"?

If so, can you spot the loophole in this statement? (one exists)... If not, what wording would you like to see used instead?

I apologize... From your previous post, I assumed that you were using the term 'loophole' to imply a 'point/idea' thought of and proposed by the NHLPA... I now assume that you are referring to 'loophole' as an intentional (i.e. trick) or unintentional unfortunate, unforeseeable situation (from an owner's perspective) that results from a CBA point/idea raised by the NHLPA...

IMO, at this point, and assuming that both parties are trying to negotiate the terms of the CBA - both are bringing points and ideas to the table - with the hopes of coming to an agreement... The collection of these points and ideas will/should eventually lead to the next CBA... From what I can tell, the NHLPA is saying (at this point), we agree to the hard cap framework, 'subject to' (whatever the conditions they present are - the points that the NHLPA feel will allow them to agree to a hard cap)...

For a negotiated deal to happen, the NHL is going to have to negotiate or flat out accept some of these subject to's...

There is a chance that a subject to (or a point/idea made by another party) will lead to a loophole (the more 'outside' points/ideas, the more complicated a contract becomes, the greater the potential for loopholes)... Any point or statement in a contract is potentially a breeding ground for a loophole... Unfortunately, loopholes inevitably happen in complicated, negotiated contracts - which a CBA is... They cannot be completely avoided - and not being willing to accept the other parties points in a negotiation for fear of 'loopholes' is unreasonable, IMO... The NHL should be anticipating the potential loopholes, and figuring out ways to plug these potential loopholes - and involving the NHLPA in coming to solutions that plug these potential loopholes... NHLPA points/ideas shouldn't be dismissed alltogether, IMO... They should be a starting point for further dialogue...

The NHL cannot hide from accepting NHLPA points in the fear that they will lead to unforeseen 'loopholes'... If so, why are they even negotiating?

 

[Morbo]

That percentage is the only concern for the PA. The only place revenue sharing enters into it from the PA side is by guaranteeing the number of teams and jobs (i.e. enough revenue sharing to make the 30 NHL teams healthy which is what the league has already offered).

Obviously you're wrong, or the players simply WOULDN'T care about this issue.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Wrong.

They share 40% of the gate as well.

Wow, and that's such a HUGE percentage of revenues. At the absolute worst, with an average season ticket of $54 and the average attendence being 67,000 that means revenue sharing of $11.5 million for the season. Also, what is constituted as the gate? This has been a contentious issue elsewhere. Does the gate include the season tickets and luxury suites. In some instances the "gate" is considered only the tickets sold that are not associated with the season ticket blocks sold. How does that fit in the NFL scheme of things? That changes things and shared revenues dramatically.

As I have asked repeatedly, can someone identify what the percentage of revenues shared comes from non-national sources? Based on that projection we're talking in the neighborhood of 10-15%. Someone care to clarify this? Cheese care to kick in something useful to a thread?

 

[I in the Eye]

This isn't so much a negotiation IMO but waiting for the PA to come to their collective senses.

Fair enough... but that could take 2 years (or more), as Gretzky predicts... Is that worth it, when a hard cap framework that can be negotiated from to satisfy both sides is already on the table?

At what point (how long from now) does the NHL begin negotiating with the NHLPA? Or does the NHL never begin negotiating?

 

[Morbo]

Wow, and that's such a HUGE percentage of revenues. At the absolute worst, with an average season ticket of $54 and the average attendence being 67,000 that means revenue sharing of $11.5 million for the season.

You claimed that local revenues in the NFL pretty much stayed local. I said that in reality they shared 40% of all gate receipts. That's all there is to it.

As I have asked repeatedly, can someone identify what the percentage of revenues shared comes from non-national sources? Based on that projection we're talking in the neighborhood of 10-15%. Someone care to clarify this? Cheese care to kick in something useful to a thread?

Your attitude leaves a lot to be desired.

At least in this particular post you admitted you don't know what the hell you're talking about. It's a nice change.

 

[Enoch]

Without reading this thread or the replies to me, I noticed I was corrected on my math - Good call.

For some reason I used 1.2 rather than 0.9.

Go figure.

 

[kdb209]

Revenue sharing also helps avoid trust issues with what the numbers are, since 30 owners will be policing each other, wanting a cut of Chicago's luxury box suites, for example, that are reported to be $0.

This zero dollars for luxury boxes at the United Center keeps coming up. It's pure BS. Lynn Turner (the head of Levitt's accounting team) has specifically repudiated that claim.

From the post-gazette:
Accused of failing to disclose luxury box revenues in former U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission chairman Arthur Levitt's report of NHL finances in February 2003, Wirtz was cleared of any wrongdoings by another member of the commission.

"Let me say without reservation that when the Levitt Report was done, it was ensured that all hockey-related luxury box revenues were included in the reported revenues," former commission chief accountant Lynn Turner wrote in an e-mail to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. "Unfortunately, the players have refused to accept Mr. Levitt's written offer to sit down with them and take them through the numbers. This has led to such uninformed statements."

The accusation was made by Penguins defenseman Brooks Orpik, who told the newspaper Wirtz "declared no revenue from luxury boxes at the United Center in Chicago."

 

[kdb209]

Wow, and that's such a HUGE percentage of revenues. At the absolute worst, with an average season ticket of $54 and the average attendence being 67,000 that means revenue sharing of $11.5 million for the season. Also, what is constituted as the gate? This has been a contentious issue elsewhere. Does the gate include the season tickets and luxury suites. In some instances the "gate" is considered only the tickets sold that are not associated with the season ticket blocks sold. How does that fit in the NFL scheme of things? That changes things and shared revenues dramatically.

The NFL revenue sharing does include all season tickets and luxury boxes (but not PSLs IIRC).

There will be a fight in the next NFL CBA over ther the definition of revenues w.r.t. to Salary Cap. The NFLPA want's to increase the scope of what is considered football related revenues - specifically stadium naming rights and private stadium advertising deals - which can account for 10's of millions of $'s for some clubs.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

To me, the key for the NHL is getting a deal that will reasonably satisfy their economic concerns, with as minimal hardship and casualties as possible...

As a fan who will not gain $-wise in this dispute, it is my view that both sides should end up agreeing to and accepting a deal that both consider fair (i.e. 'livable')... As a fan, I don't care if one side wins a total victory (i.e. a deal that contains no 'loopholes' - where one side's 'loophole' is another side's accepted idea/point)... For a deal to happen, IMO, there has to be 'loopholes' (i.e. negotiation of 'give and take')... The ass**** in me (not the fan) thinks it would be nice to see Goodenow have his face rubbed in his own piss - by not giving him anything he wants (i.e. no 'loopholes')... IMO, Goodenow is smug and arrogant... The ass**** in me would devilishly smile if he got his ass handed to him... I can afford to be an ass**** (I'm just a fan)... The NHL can't... It is going to be extremely costly (in terms of money, time, risk) to get a deal with 'no loopholes'... Not only is it going to be extremely costly, but it is also not necessary for a fair (livable) deal to happen... There does not need to be a clear 'winner' and a clear 'loser' for the NHL to reasonably satisfy their economic concerns... Reportedly, the NHL has gotten the NHLPA to accept a hard cap framework thanks to the NHL's pressure to date - there is no good reason, IMO, that a deal cannot be forthcoming in the coming weeks/months - with some give and take as to the specifics...

There comes a point when the time and effort needed to get everything you want costs more than the benefits of eventually getting everything you want... I don't know when this point is (I don't know with the in's and out's of the business of hockey), but I think that this point is sooner rather than later... IMO, the longer this labour dispute drags out, the worse it is for everybody... I'm all for the NHL still exerting pressure now to get more of what they want - who cares at this point, IMO, it's the off-season... Squeeze all you can get for the time being... but be prepared to accept 'loopholes'...

For a deal to get done 'soon' (i.e. preferably before next season, perhaps the middle of next season), IMO, will mean a negotiated deal that will also involve elements that the players want ('loopholes') - i.e. revenue sharing that may be used to help pay for salaries - not just for marketing... What the numbers look like (what is available for salary), IMO, is up to the NHL and the NHLPA to negotiate and decide... IMO, some of the revenue-sharing $ should be used for salary (it'll help eventually get this deal done)... If the NHL goes for a home run at this point (Revenue Nazis - no soup for you, NHLPA!), they are just showing off - at the games expense...

I agree with everything you said.. There has to be givebacks to the PA...like it or not that's better for the league than taking as long as it would take to get everything they want without giving back.

 

[RangerBoy]

Absolutely a small hockey market. When only 60,000 homes watch an 80m dollar team trap for six months in a half-filled building with almost no media that is a small hockey market. Time to live in the present, not 1994, not 1980. The Red Sox now get more coverage in New York than the Rangers. Sather's signing of Jagr looked like a minor league move in New York compared to A-Rod.

I bet even the Canes and Predators if they iced an 80m dollar team could come close to 60,000 homes to tune in if 82 games were on television.

Maybe Dolan should stop buying free agents because no one paid attention in Mr Steinbrenner's town, even in baseball's off-season.

The revenue reported was 85m, the team spent 80m on payroll to generate that much. Dolan claimed 40.9m in losses. Where is all this other revenue coming from you talk about? Dolan overpaid the Isles for television rights by so much he pays out more on the Isles then he can take in with the Rangers. Moving forward, Dolan had to again overpay last summer to keep the Devils from going with Comcast...

Rupert Murdoch not only walked away from being partnered 40/60 Msg/Fox, he gladly took other stations broke up the merger.

I do not blame Dolan one bit for not wanting any part of giving up revenue's he makes as long as his hockey business losses money.

How much revenue did the Rangers have in 2003-04?Forbes magazine reported the Rangers revenue at $118 million.Tops in the NHL.The team is worth $282 million.That's a small market NHL team?

No media?Here we go again.We had this conversation about six months.You never stop.How many newspapers cover the Rangers?Name another NHL team which has more papers covering their teams

Worry about your team.You are so fixated on Rangers.Your Ranger envy never fails to show up

You can't compare any other franchise to the Yankees.How stupid can you be?

 

[kdb209]

No media?Here we go again.We had this conversation about six months.You never stop.How many newspapers cover the Rangers?Name another NHL team which has more papers covering their teams

Worry about your team.You are so fixated on Rangers.Your Ranger envy never fails to show up

You can't compare any other franchise to the Yankees.How stupid can you be?

Yes, there may be more papers, but if you add up the column inches, I bet the Wings get more column inches in the Freep than the Rangers (or Isles or Devils) get in the Post, the Daily News, the Times, and Newsday combined - OK maybe exagerating a bit, but not by much. There is more prominant hockey coverage in the Philly, Boston, Minneapolis, Chicago, etc papers than there are in the New York ones. I won't even bother comparing the coverage to Toronto or any of the other Canadian cities.

And God help the Rags (and Isles and Devils) if the Knicks ever get good again and if/when the Nets move to Brooklyn. New York is an oversaturated sports market, the likes of which does not exist in other major sports markets.

I'm back in NY every year for the holidays, and the hockey coverage has dropped noticibly over the past 5 or so years.

 

[tantalum]

Obviously you're wrong, or the players simply WOULDN'T care about this issue.

Sorry the percentage SHOULD be the only concern. The concern they have right now is trying to get a system that allows salaries to grow without major checks and balances. It's beyond that. It isn't going to happen. They could have had that years ago but they hav been months behind in this negotiation from the start. They could have had so much more...probably just a tax system. They are going to be very lucky if there isn't direct linkage to revenues that players salaries can not be more than X%...whether it's from escrow or some sort of delayed correction. They could have had a tax system, a restrictive tax system, a soft cap, and high hard cap (unlinked) but they are staring down the barrel of a lower hard cap directly linked to revenues now (at a reasonable rate) and I don't see that changing.

 

[tantalum]

Fair enough... but that could take 2 years (or more), as Gretzky predicts... Is that worth it, when a hard cap framework that can be negotiated from to satisfy both sides is already on the table?

At what point (how long from now) does the NHL begin negotiating with the NHLPA? Or does the NHL never begin negotiating?

This is a negotiation in which one party holds all the good cards. When the negotiation is about changing the system the party with the good cards gets to essentially pick that system. That's what the NHL is doing. They floated a variety of system ideas to the PA to negotiate from while the PA didn't do so so the NHL essentially settled on a couple of systems to negotiate. That is their perogative as the strong side in the negotiation. When is the PA going to negotiate with the NHL I might ask? But I'm not so foolish to suggest that. Neither side is neogiating with each other at this time because they can not agree on a system and every time it looks like they do the PA throws a curve ball (i.e. no linkage except when revenues go up as what killed the season, or a floating cap that does not truly address the concerns of the league nor do the flesh out anymore over a two week period). The NHL has shown a willingness to move within their own system. They have shown a willingness to put forth a fair system from my point of view...one that pays players very well indeed and is not at all insulting. One that all but guarantees those 700 players continue to have jobs (and if the 'union' was worth anything they would get that guarantee) for the long term and as the sport grows so do salaries. They've raised the percentage of reveneue they want to give from the beginning of the process, the NHL even came off linkage for a time, they've offered profit sharing, they've offered increased free agency, they offered a pretty high payroll floor, they've offered revenue sharing ABOVE some of the levels suggested by the PA in the December proposal, they've given the guarantee that they would have enough revenue sharing to keep those 30 teams around (i.e. all the jobs)....From my point of view the league has shown quite a bit of movement within their system. Certainly enough movement to give the players a very fair deal.

 

[CGG]

This zero dollars for luxury boxes at the United Center keeps coming up. It's pure BS. Lynn Turner (the head of Levitt's accounting team) has specifically repudiated that claim.

If you honestly think the Levitt report accurately reflects every single dollar of hockey-related revenue for all 30 teams, that's a crock of hooey too. 29 greedy owners sniffing around your luxury box revenue, advertising money, arena naming rights, personal seat licenses, etc all wanting their cut is a far better way of making sure teams don't underreport revenue than getting Arthur Levitt to look over a URO.

 

[CGG]

This is a negotiation in which one party holds all the good cards. When the negotiation is about changing the system the party with the good cards gets to essentially pick that system. That's what the NHL is doing.

Is this from the kindergarten school of negotiating? The NHL has no more right to pick the system than the players do. You can't say "the players had it their way for 10 years, and the owners were stupid, so now just to be fair let's let the owners do whatever they want!" It's a collective bargaining agreement, meaning all terms have to be bargained, to agreement, collectively. The notion that the NHL should automatically get the system they want is ludicrous.

 

[tantalum]

Is this from the kindergarten school of negotiating? The NHL has no more right to pick the system than the players do. You can't say "the players had it their way for 10 years, and the owners were stupid, so now just to be fair let's let the owners do whatever they want!" It's a collective bargaining agreement, meaning all terms have to be bargained, to agreement, collectively. The notion that the NHL should automatically get the system they want is ludicrous.

No it isn't the kindergarten way of negotiating. It's the reality of the situation. You have one side in which the business that is failing is just a side interest while the other side is dependent on that business for their livelihood. The fact is that the NHL DOES hold the cards and they have decided that the most important battle in this negotiation is the system as such yes they are, essentially, going to CHOOSE the system and the PA must negotiate in that system. The PA has realized this i think and are eventually moving towards being in that system. They will at most be able to get a twist on the owners system but it will be within the same framework.

 

[RangerBoy]

Yes, there may be more papers, but if you add up the column inches, I bet the Wings get more column inches in the Freep than the Rangers (or Isles or Devils) get in the Post, the Daily News, the Times, and Newsday combined - OK maybe exagerating a bit, but not by much. There is more prominant hockey coverage in the Philly, Boston, Minneapolis, Chicago, etc papers than there are in the New York ones. I won't even bother comparing the coverage to Toronto or any of the other Canadian cities.

And God help the Rags (and Isles and Devils) if the Knicks ever get good again and if/when the Nets move to Brooklyn. New York is an oversaturated sports market, the likes of which does not exist in other major sports markets.

I'm back in NY every year for the holidays, and the hockey coverage has dropped noticibly over the past 5 or so years.

Disagree.How many hockey teams are the top franchise in their market?I don't see any greater coverage in any of the other papers.Most of the papers have one beat writer covering the game with a game story and note section.Hockey is fourth sport in most of the American markets which have four teams or the third in three team markets.Hockey will always be a cult sport with a small and loyal following

 

[Mess]

Disagree.How many hockey teams are the top franchise in their market?I don't see any greater coverage in any of the other papers.Most of the papers have one beat writer covering the game with a game story and note section.Hockey is fourth sport in most of the American markets which have four teams or the third in three team markets.Hockey will always be a cult sport with a small and loyal following

In Canada... The Hockey team is always on the front page of the Sports section, some times in front page of the Newspaper itself, the day after a game and on some of the other pages inside, but then you have to search a little because the AHL team and the CHL team in your region often get a fair amount of coverage as well.

 

[NYIsles1*]

Yes, there may be more papers, but if you add up the column inches, I bet the Wings get more column inches in the Freep than the Rangers (or Isles or Devils) get in the Post, the Daily News, the Times, and Newsday combined - OK maybe exagerating a bit, but not by much. There is more prominant hockey coverage in the Philly, Boston, Minneapolis, Chicago, etc papers than there are in the New York ones. I won't even bother comparing the coverage to Toronto or any of the other Canadian cities.

And God help the Rags (and Isles and Devils) if the Knicks ever get good again and if/when the Nets move to Brooklyn. New York is an oversaturated sports market, the likes of which does not exist in other major sports markets.

I'm back in NY every year for the holidays, and the hockey coverage has dropped noticibly over the past 5 or so years.

New York is absolutely an oversaturated sports market and the problems here are unique unlike no other hockey market in the US and nothing hockey can do will change that. The Nets have become a bigger market team already, generating far more attention than hockey.

You can go to the Pittsburgh papers or the St Pete Times (Tampa) and find far more coverage than the New York papers give hockey on an avg gameday. The paper in Nashville last week had prospects updates on the Preds and quotes from the players. There is no reason to cover hockey in New York that way anymore when other sports drive the media and public interest.

 

[NYIsles1*]

How much revenue did the Rangers have in 2003-04?Forbes magazine reported the Rangers revenue at $118 million.Tops in the NHL.The team is worth $282 million.That's a small market NHL team?

Forbes magazine is an estimate, nothing more that historically has under-estimated NHL losses in most cases. There are other ways to judge a large market from a small market and the Rangers fit the criteria of being a small market team in an oversaturated market, which explains their loss. Why should a team that had only 60,000 homes watch an 80m dollar product trap for 82 games be considered a big market?

Larry Brooks (pro-NHLPA) even reported the leagues revenues from a February NHL offer to the NHLPA and did not question the reported revenue. The Rangers were fifth in team revenue at 85.5 million, thirty-three less million than Forbes report who had no access to the team books. Montreal also reported 85m in revenue and reportedly have been losing 20m a year in a building more modern than Msg.

Maybe we should start calling Charles Wang's New York Dragons big market too because they are a New York team also. Let's ignore the fact Arena Football on NBC had better ratings than hockey (Ranger hockey) on ABC..

No media?Here we go again.We had this conversation about six months.You never stop.How many newspapers cover the Rangers?Name another NHL team which has more papers covering their teams

One article per game, per paper. They put the score in and little else. The A.P can do that too, that's your idea of coverage with an 80m dollar team?

Worry about your team.You are so fixated on Rangers.Your Ranger envy never fails to show up

Unfortunatley when the league is shutdown we as fans have to worry about all the teams, especially ones run as poorly as the one in Manhattan that have no clue how to operate without a checkbook and were the seventh team in their own media market. It's not envy, the Rangers are a problem with this business that should be discussed because no star player could bring them any attention. The Isles beat the Rangers out three years in a row for a playoff spot with half the payroll and half the reported losses, the Isles are not good for this business either for the same reasons.


However unlike you, I do not come onto these boards and talk about contraction of other teams for nothing more than a sense of entitlement. Why not include your own team as part of the league's problem instead of telling us why the Rangers must have Crosby for the good of the league when all those star players in Manhattan might as well have played in Carolina for all the good it did ?

The Ranger perception in their own market is so low today they get coverage equal to the minor league baseball teams in town and I'm not writing that to
give you a hard time. You like posting articles? Please go do some research for yourself. When was the last time a Ranger player or prospect had a update in a city paper with some quotes or a feature on their backgrounds?

I bet the two papers in Pittsburgh are covering the WBS team in the AHL playoffs, while the Dolans would have to purchase a newspaper company to get a Wolfpack story in a Manhattan paper. Even the Sound Tigers outdrew the Wolfpack in their worst season in the AHL with no television and barely any radio coverage while Dolan put some Pack games on Msg and still had their worst attendance turnout in it's history.

You can't compare any other franchise to the Yankees.How stupid can you be?

I'm not comparing any other franchises to the Yankees. I am pointing out whether you care to admit it or not that baseball draws so much attention it has taken whatever attention hockey used to receive and reduced it to a minor league sport in Manhattan and the tri-state area, win or lose.

Feel free at this point to bring up 1994 and something eleven years ago as your proof of the big New York hockey market in 2005. I'm sure I can bring up the Isles popularity in the city press when they were champions too.

Whether you want to see it or not neither no longer applies.

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by kdb209
This zero dollars for luxury boxes at the United Center keeps coming up. It's pure BS. Lynn Turner (the head of Levitt's accounting team) has specifically repudiated that claim.

If you honestly think the Levitt report accurately reflects every single dollar of hockey-related revenue for all 30 teams, that's a crock of hooey too. 29 greedy owners sniffing around your luxury box revenue, advertising money, arena naming rights, personal seat licenses, etc all wanting their cut is a far better way of making sure teams don't underreport revenue than getting Arthur Levitt to look over a URO.

Do I think the Levitt Report is perfect, no. But I do think it is more accurate than most of the pro-PA posters give it credit for. It was not just a rubber stamp and it was not just a check on addition.

It is much more accurate than the wild charges coming out of the PA (Zero dollars from luxury boxes in the United Center) which try to discredit it.

And if posters keep bringing out this canard, I will continue to rebut it.